Submission – Wellington Service Review
I am writing this not as a regular user – I live in the central city and therefore don’t need to use any form of motorised transport on a regular basis – but as a transport planner who has done a number of major bus and rail system reviews in my time. (including West Yorkshire, Auckland, Rotorua, Napier-Hastings, Hutt Valley, NSW rail, Auckland rail, and intercity coach and rail, Newmans).
I support the basic concept of high frequency core routes, and overall I think it is a reasonable job. Some of the new ideas are good and the way various problems are addressed is competent.
I have comments in a few areas:
Newlands/Johnsonville
The proposal appears designed to force passengers to use the train. Good from a supply perspective, but forcing people to make two transfers including a notoriously unreliable rail link is not going to be popular, particularly as people now have experience with through services. It will be particularly difficult without integrated ticketing arrangements.
If you want to keep the rail, I suggest that it be made a core service with a 15 minute frequency throughout the day and week. To achieve a 15 minute frequency requires the running time between the crossing loops to be regularised at 7.5 minutes whereas the current times are a little less than this. As a result the total trip time is increased from 21 minutes to 24 minutes – not a major issue I would think. An example timetable for the am peak is below.
The original timetable had a train every 13 minutes (based on the running times between Khandallah and Ngaio) but some trains were taken out to improve reliability. Some trains are still timetabled to wait to cross trains that no longer run!!! This 15 minute timetable has three minutes extra slack in every run which would help ensure reliability. Maybe with the new trains that will be enough.
Run
Time |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
A |
B |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
Johnsonville |
6.29 |
6.44 |
6.59 |
7.14 |
7.29 |
7.44 |
7.59 |
8.14 |
8.29 |
8.44 |
| 5 |
Khandallah |
6.34 |
6.49 |
7.04 |
7.19 |
7.34 |
7.49 |
8.04 |
8.19 |
8.34 |
8.49 |
| 7.5 |
Ngaio |
6.42 |
6.57 |
7.12 |
7.27 |
7.42 |
7.57 |
8.12 |
8.27 |
8.42 |
8.37 |
| 7.5 |
Wadestown |
6.49 |
7.04 |
7.19 |
7.34 |
7.49 |
8.04 |
8.19 |
8.34 |
8.49 |
9.04 |
| 4.5 |
Wellington |
6.54 |
7.09 |
7.24 |
7.39 |
7.54 |
8.09 |
8.24 |
8.39 |
8.54 |
9.09 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Run
Time |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
A |
B |
|
|
|
|
| |
Wellington |
6.00 |
6.15 |
6.30 |
6.45 |
7.00 |
7.15 |
7.30 |
7.45 |
8.00 |
8.15 |
| 4.5 |
Wadestown |
6.04 |
6.19 |
6.34 |
6.49 |
7.04 |
7.19 |
7.34 |
7.49 |
8.04 |
8.19 |
| 7.5 |
Ngaio |
6.12 |
6.27 |
6.42 |
6.57 |
7.12 |
7.27 |
7.42 |
7.57 |
8.12 |
8.27 |
| 7.5 |
Khandallah |
6.19 |
6.34 |
6.49 |
7.04 |
7.19 |
7.34 |
7.49 |
8.04 |
8.19 |
8.34 |
| 5 |
Johnsonville |
6.24 |
6.39 |
6.54 |
7.09 |
7.24 |
7.39 |
7.54 |
8.09 |
8.24 |
8.39 |
Can something be done to accelerate the introduction of integrated tickets across the network? The discussion document talks about through ticketing on same-operator services, but that doesn’t help on this corridor. It could be a problem elsewhere if NZ Bus were to lose a contract or two.
A simple expedient in the absence of electronic ticketing would be to promote multi-operator fixed duration (day rover, weekly or monthly) tickets in this corridor.
Kelburn /Victoria University
Buses serving the university campus does seem to have been a growth industry, probably at the expense of the cable car. The Mairangi buses were some of the first to be diverted that way and now you have these and the Karori west services going via the university. I am not sure how many students live in Northland or Karori but I am sure most people preferred the Glenmore Street route when there was a choice and I am concerned that not even peak services go this way in the new plan. Terminating all Mairangi services at the railway station is a definite retrograde step.
Diverting the Seatoun route via the Terrace is a clever option and allows you to eliminate a number of ‘cross town’ routes but I don’t think it is a good one. Having established a priority route through the centre of town – where most people want to go – I think we should make maximum use of it.
I like the service from Kelburn via Aro St
I suggest:
Return the Seatoun route to the golden mile
Operate a shuttle between Courtenay Place and the top of the cable car via Ghuznee St, The Terrace, Victoria University (Kelburn Parade).
Operate a mini bus service from the top of the cable car through Kelburn village to Highbury. Zealandia and Karori West. There should be a bus meeting every cable car. The main drawback is the cost to the passenger – this could be overcome by making the cable car free if used in conjunction with a bus fare.
Southern Loop
My initial thought was that the Ohiro road – Buckley Road – Houghton Bay – Brooklyn service(29) is a bit ambitious. I am now going to suggest something even more ambitious …
I think there would be an advantage in linking island Bay and Evans Bay, giving the Hungerford Road area a link to Kilbirnie and the Airport. Ie linking your 29 with your 15. So I ended up with a South City circular that would operate from the city (railway or Courtenay place?) via Brooklyn, Happy valley road to Ohiro Bay, thence via Buckley road to View Road and then Hungerford Road to Queens Drive, returning via your no 15.
The remainder of your 29 could be served by a route between Kingston (doing a loop through Vogeltown) and Houghton Bay via Newtown.
Peak hour services
Running some peak services via the waterfront probably makes sense although there is a danger that it forces passengers to choose which stop to go to, reducing the effective level of service. In particular Courtenay place is still a key point on the network, and it would make sense to route services through here if possible. This could be achieved by the peak services using Taranaki St to access the Courtenay place rather than going past New World.
Bus route numbering
If you do nothing else, can you at least re-visit the bus route numbering. The old system was based on the tram routes and had the effect that the routes out of the CBD were easily recognisable. No 1 and No 3 buses went via Newtown, Nos 2 and 5 via the bus tunnel. No 12 was Glenmore St, etc. You knew which Mairangi buses used Glenmore Street because they were no 12. When some Mairangi went via the University they were No 18. But this has been changed to a scheme where every service has its own number. Not only is this largely redundant, it is also unhelpful.
I used to know that a No 7 bus went up Cuba St. Now I see a 7, 8, and 9 … unless I go to the trouble of familiarising myself with the entire timetable, I don’t know whether these take different routes or the same route. I might guess that the 21 is a different route, but there is no guarantee. I see a Mairangi 13, a Mairangi 22 and a Mairangi 23. Which way do they go? What is the difference between a Mairangi 22 and a Mairangi 23? Where it came from … how useful is that?
I suggest that the name and the number on the front of the bus be used to convey different information. The name is the destination. The number is the route it will take. Go back to having half a dozen routes that people can remember and relate to.
(If you must have variations, a 3A and a 3B gives the message that these buses are basically the same route. Numbering systems such as 301, 302 being variants do not give the same contextual clue)
David Lupton
9 March 2012