networkn:

 

So, again, I am not suggesting that making public transport free means magically it has no cost, my question is whether the cost is close enough offset by the reduction in ongoing infrastructure for cars, in maintenance of existing or expansion to accommodate additional because we seem to have more and more cars on the road each week.

 

 

 

We still have to maintain the existing network as abandoning it reduces the ability for buses to utilise and people still need to get around at the weekend for activities not well served by PT... with climate change I am expecting a massive decrease in new road consturciton around Auckland from the mid part of the new RLTP period (~2026ish) as the NLTF dries up and we shift focus to reducing our environmental impact.

Handle9: There's no need to make public transport free and it would probably produce unexpected and undesirable outcomes.

The only thing required to get people to use public transport is to build the infrastructure. If it's relatively convenient, reliable and available it gets used.

The northern busway and britomart/rail electrification are both examples of public transport infrastructure that was poo pooed at the time of construction and have been hugely successful.

I rarely, if ever see positive feedback about Wellington or Aucklands public transport. I regularly hear complaints about the cost. I do hear many people say it's fairly much a wash in terms of cost between running a car to the office vs public transport, esp given the number of days they have to drive because public transport isn't operating or is delayed. Add to that, the convenience of a car over public transport, and the infrequency of services... It's not a great picture. Admittedly, mostly anacedoetal.

Benoire:

 

networkn:

 

So, again, I am not suggesting that making public transport free means magically it has no cost, my question is whether the cost is close enough offset by the reduction in ongoing infrastructure for cars, in maintenance of existing or expansion to accommodate additional because we seem to have more and more cars on the road each week.

 

 

 

 

We still have to maintain the existing network as abandoning it reduces the ability for buses to utilise and people still need to get around at the weekend for activities not well served by PT... with climate change I am expecting a massive decrease in new road consturciton around Auckland from the mid part of the new RLTP period (~2026ish) as the NLTF dries up and we shift focus to reducing our environmental impact.

 

Yup, perhaps I am not being clear enough. I understand there are still going to be costs to maintain the public transport and roading infrastructure for the people who continue to 'need' a car or vehicle. Surely though, a big reduction in traffic, would reduce the amount, frequency and cost of that maintenance? I don't know how much by. There would be some positive (financial and non financial) effects to productivity and quality of life for those who do continue to require a vehicle.

I am just wondering what the numbers look like. To be honest, if my rates bill jumped $500 a year, but it meant my commute dropped by 10% a day all year around, that would be worth while to me. I understand not everyone could afford such an increase.

networkn:

 

Handle9: There's no need to make public transport free and it would probably produce unexpected and undesirable outcomes.

The only thing required to get people to use public transport is to build the infrastructure. If it's relatively convenient, reliable and available it gets used.

The northern busway and britomart/rail electrification are both examples of public transport infrastructure that was poo pooed at the time of construction and have been hugely successful.

 

 

 

I rarely, if ever see positive feedback about Wellington or Aucklands public transport. I regularly hear complaints about the cost. I do hear many people say it's fairly much a wash in terms of cost between running a car to the office vs public transport, esp given the number of days they have to drive because public transport isn't operating or is delayed. Add to that, the convenience of a car over public transport, and the infrequency of services... It's not a great picture. Admittedly, mostly anacedoetal.

 

 

 

There is an element of truth in this.  Rail has been heavily affected by Kiwirail's lack of asset management and planning (found out recently that they didn't have an asset management team!) so speeds ahve been low and services fractured.  Bus routes are stuck in congestion and our senior leaders seem reluctant to make space to make their movement faster, and the ferries are special.  I ride my eBike to the viaduct from Titirangi and its ~35 mins door to door, the car is 45-50 mins + $parking, fuel and wear/tear, the bus is $10 per day and takes ~1.30 hours each way. 

Its only really those in the city centre (or inner suburbs), access to the rail lines OR the Northern expressway that have consistenyl fast PT journeys.  Its also not helped by tons of cheap business parking and odd FBT on double cab utes!

Eastern Busway will give some decent movement from the east along with any improvements to the NW motorway...

networkn:

 

Handle9: There's no need to make public transport free and it would probably produce unexpected and undesirable outcomes.

The only thing required to get people to use public transport is to build the infrastructure. If it's relatively convenient, reliable and available it gets used.

The northern busway and britomart/rail electrification are both examples of public transport infrastructure that was poo pooed at the time of construction and have been hugely successful.

 

I rarely, if ever see positive feedback about Wellington or Aucklands public transport. I regularly hear complaints about the cost. I do hear many people say it's fairly much a wash in terms of cost between running a car to the office vs public transport, esp given the number of days they have to drive because public transport isn't operating or is delayed. Add to that, the convenience of a car over public transport, and the infrequency of services... It's not a great picture. Admittedly, mostly anacedoetal.

 

You may not hear great things as quantity of infrastructure is lacking but still public transport use has a consistent CAGR of around 5%. Rail growth has been even greater and exceed ARTAs predictions when the electrification project happened.

@handle9 CAGR ?  How does this compare with the number of new cars on the road, to me that would be meaningful. Unless Public transport is picking up more people than new cars each year, we are going backward. It certainly feels like the past 4 years, morning traffic has gotten worse overall. The biggest noticeable difference to me personally, was the opening of the Tunnel, and COVID, but today for example, and Friday, comparatively, traffic was very unfantastic. The last number on that graph is from 2017, do you have more recent numbers? 

I've got access to the latest numbers and i might be able to share a few extracts of the current numbers, noting we've been affected by WFH and covid.

networkn:

 

@handle9 CAGR ?  How does this compare with the number of new cars on the road, to me that would be meaningful. Unless Public transport is picking up more people than new cars each year, we are going backward. It certainly feels like the past 4 years, morning traffic has gotten worse overall. The biggest noticeable difference to me personally, was the opening of the Tunnel, and COVID, but today for example, and Friday, comparatively, traffic was very unfantastic. The last number on that graph is from 2017, do you have more recent numbers? 

 

Compound annual growth rate. In 2019 the rail network carried 22 million passengers with over 100 million passenger journeys on passenger transport.  I'd assume 2020 to be a total outlier for obvious reasons.

The rail network is getting tapped out of peak capacity which is the reason for the CRL.

You are not correct that public transport needs to grow faster than the rate of cars to avoid going backwards. It needs to absorb all new passenger journeys to avoid going backwards in terms of congestion. 

People will pay for reliable, convenient and comfortable public transport. The northern busway will reach capacity somewhere around 2026. That is 20 years ahead of what was planned.

A quality public transport network really means a spine of trains and ferries with busses a cars feeding into the network. Where good quality infrastructure exists it's very successful, there's just not enough of it. Busses aren't the answer for mass transport, they don't scale at all.

Benoire:

 

I've got access to the latest numbers and i might be able to share a few extracts of the current numbers, noting we've been affected by WFH and covid.

 

Sure, that would be interesting, but don't put yourself at risk. It was just a musing of mine that I figured the cost of public transport may be within spitting distance of other costs we could offset.

Currently we are seeing somewhere in the region of 70% of precovid patronage which aint bad compared to the rest of the world and the massive ramp up of working from home.  City bound usage is getting back to relatively pre-covid levels indicating a resurgance back in the city centre and this can be seen by the level of activity.

Covid tanked the numbers however quite badly and the other lockdowns have had a material affect on overall patronage compared to the months proceeding the level 4 lockdown.  Around Jan 2020 patronage across all pt types was in the region of 110m boardings per annum and still increasing.

Handle9:

 

Compound annual growth rate. In 2019 the rail network carried 22 million passengers with over 100 million passenger journeys on passenger transport.  I'd assume 2020 to be a total outlier for obvious reasons.

 

The rail network is getting tapped out of peak capacity which is the reason for the CRL.

 

You are not correct that public transport needs to grow faster than the rate of cars to avoid going backwards. It needs to absorb all new passenger journeys to avoid going backwards in terms of congestion. 

 

People will pay for reliable, convenient and comfortable public transport. The northern busway will reach capacity somewhere around 2026. That is 20 years ahead of what was planned.

 

A quality public transport network really means a spine of trains and ferries with busses a cars feeding into the network. Where good quality infrastructure exists it's very successful, there's just not enough of it. Busses aren't the answer for mass transport, they don't scale at all.

 

I like this post :-)

CRL will open up further changes to the bus network and potentially drop many of the city bound services that duplicate the rail line as they become pointless when you have a fast, frequent (5 min services) running on a dedicated corridor. Light rail will open up an additional 200,000 people to a high qualtiy service from Managere to the city centre through 7 new nodes, let alone the NW busway (or LRT) - I'm less convinced by NZTAs ability to deliver this though.

lol just got a security check for too many posts... the captcha asked me to identify all the bikes... how appropriate as its my mode of choice!

CRL also allows for nine-car trains at some point which is the next big bridge for Auckland to cross in terms of rail - I'm sure we'll get there before we get the Light Rail we badly need in the South- and North-Western growth areas, but at least we're not stuck with six car trains forever. 

Yep new standards and design requirements cover nine car capable platforms :-) we've also got the trains on order from CAF to give the capability of running nine car sets.  The main thing for rail is Kiwirails monitoring performance of the network and improving the quality of the tracks and curves to deal with the speed constraints.

Handle9:

 

You are not correct that public transport needs to grow faster than the rate of cars to avoid going backwards. It needs to absorb all new passenger journeys to avoid going backwards in terms of congestion. 

 

From my perspective, the idea behind my question was to move as many people to public transport, by making it so attractive, it's an offer they can't refuse, therefore I'd have hoped to see traffic congestion ease as a result.

The traffic as bad as it is now is not desirable.