Congestion and inefficiencies – why they want to change our bus services

Wellington.Scoop
Now that all the money has been spent to make the CBD friendlier and faster for buses (and less attractive for pedestrians) the Regional Council has discovered that the result is: congestion. “At least 140 buses per hour in the morning and evening peak,” Councillor Glensor told us on Monday. “Resulting in significant jams and delays,” said Councillor Ponter five days earlier.

The council has also acknowledged, belatedly, that there are huge inefficiencies along the Golden Mile, caused by duplication of routes. And it has finally accepted what the rest of us have been seeing for months – what it delicately describes as the bunching effect of buses, particularly at Willis and Manners Streets. (Manners Street – where we were told that all problems would be fixed when buses were given priority.)

So it’s trying to fix the congestion by rearranging all the routes and all the timetables. It intends to move one of its high-frequently services on to the Terrace, and to shift some peak services on to the waterfront. (That’s right, where peak hour traffic can often come to a standstill.)

The Regional Council made its official announcement of the changes on Monday, and also announced five “information sessions” where it will tell us what it intends to do. If you go to one of these meetings, you’ll be told what has been decided. Much the same behaviour as the dictatorial Transport Agency and its Basin flyover obsession. (What happened to all the public submissions?)

Regional Councillor Daran Ponter has bravely gone on record by saying this process is not consultation. He is concerned that some people will feel that the proposals will leave them worse off. So he says: “I urge people to make submissions on the proposed changes to both routes and services. People need to let us know how the new services will affect them in order that we can take this into account in more detailed planning.”

He and councillor Bruce have organised a separate series of community meetings (two so far, seven to go) where they will be inviting feedback and listening to it. Before the Regional Council had even announced its plans, they’d collected six points of concern from local people.

. Concern that quality bus stops will be erected and that waiting times are adhered to at bus transfer points.

· Concern about the removal of some bus routes.

· A strong desire for integrated ticketing

· Concern about proposals to retire trolley bus routes (replaced by diesel buses) in Seatoun and Aro Valley.

· Desire to retain current bus route numbers as much as possible

· Concerns about how the elderly and disabled will adapt to the changes.

If you’re a bus traveller, it’s in your interests to look at the changes that the Regional Council is planning, in the CBD as well as in your part of town. You may have concerns of your own. (Peak-hour buses on the quays?) Then you’ll have to decide whether you want to state your opinions direct to Councillors Ponter and Bruce, or whether you’ll chance your luck by sending your thoughts to the Council. The deadline for official submissions is the middle of March.

 

23 comments:

  1. Cr Paul Bruce (Regional Councillor), 16. February 2012, 11:23

    Wellington has an ideal configuration for uptake of public transport, with long thin corridors and relatively high density housing along those routes. This has led Wellington to have the highest uptake of public transport in Australasia.

    However, we have shot ourselves in the foot by insisting on bringing buses from every new hilltop subdivision right into the centre of the city. Studies comparing Wellington with other European cities of similar size, show that a gain of 30-40% efficiency can be achieved by moving towards a high quality public transport mode like light rail along the main arterial corridor.

    The density along this route supports a high capacity mode, and the commercial success of the Airport Flier indicates the demand for it. Car commuters in cities in the US and Europe flock to a fast, comfortable and superior modern light rail service where it is provided.

    This Wellington city bus review has gone towards this concept with a focus on corridors and a small number of hubs. This has released buses from under-utilised services into the city, to provide more frequent and extended services outside the CBD. Interchanges, where they occur, are generally in major shopping centres with associated facilities. It is hoped that 75% of people would be within a ten minute walk of the expanded network of core services compared to 58% at present.

    A $1million Spine study, also due for completion late this year, must follow through the recommendations made in the mid 90s, that strongly recommended high-capacity modern light rail for the Golden Mile through to Newtown and the airport.

    The final aspect for a high quality transport service and an essential element of the implementation of the Bus and Spine studies is a redesign of our fare system to remove penalties for transfers between services and different operators. This is commonly referred to as integrated ticketing, and a comprehensive fare review also taking place will present various options to the public mid year, that should remove anomalies and could support a seamless public transport system.

    Your article notes the congested nature of the proposed City Terrace route. It is hoped that the new route would provide an improved service between two university campuses, plus an alternative to the use of a car or taxi for drop-offs to businesses and Government Departments in that area, which could potentially reduce traffic.

    Cr Paul Bruce
    Vice Chair Economic Committee
    Greater Wellington Regional Council

     
  2. Cr Daran Ponter, 16. February 2012, 12:07

    Yes, I stand behind my comments about consultation regarding the Wellington Bus Review. I have a concern that on something as significant as the bus review the Regional Council needs to be more proactive in its consultation.

    I applaud the 80,000 flyers in letter boxes and the on-line submission forms. Careful consideration has also been given in terms of how to display quite complicated information. I think these are positive initiatives. But in themselves they do not constitute consultation.

    While the Regional Council is holding a number of meetings with community leaders and interest groups at the Regional Council, my concern is that something of this nature needs to be taken to the community. I have too many experiences of Council-organised meetings only garnering two or three attendees. Likewise I don’t feel that a few stands at shopping malls for two hour stints really cuts it either.

    With these concerns in mind, Cr Paul Bruce and I have embarked on a series of presentations on the Bus Review at community association meetings and with representative organisations (e.g. Tramways Union, Wellington Youth Council, VUWSA). We currently have 21 presentations organised across the City.

    Last night we had a very well attended (27 people) meeting in Brooklyn, organised by the Brooklyn Residents Association. Tonight we are presenting at the Makara – Ohariu Community Board.

    If you are interested in a presentation in your area or to an interest group please contact me at Daran.Ponter@GW.govt.nz.

     
  3. Kent Duston, 16. February 2012, 16:43

    I went to the session that Crs Bruce and Ponter ran for the Mt Victoria community, and it was excellent. Both Councillors were informed and knowledgeable about the proposals, and they were open and honest about the various trade-offs and compromises that go with the proposed design changes. Whatever your views about the alterations to the bus routes, the fact that these two Regional Councillors are prepared to attend a whole bunch of meetings around the city to make sure questions can be asked and answered directly is a good sign.

    However what’s less inspiring is that the rest of the Councillors who allegedly represent Wellington on the Regional Council – Fran Wilde, Judith Aitken and Chris Laidlaw – were nowhere to be seen. Again.

     
  4. Diego Hurwitz, 16. February 2012, 17:38

    I have read the proposal carefully and appreciate all that it is saying. However I am very concerned about our bus route. I live at the top of the Brooklyn hill, very close to Mornington. My local bus line is the number 7 trolleybus. Nowadays this line gives a good service – not fantastic but pretty good for the size of our city. In peak hours Monday to Friday, morning and evening, the buses seem to run every 7 to 9 minutes and during the day every 20 minutes. I was looking forward to the new proposal, as I thought we would end up with a 15 minutes frequency on off peak times and keep the 7 to 9 minutes frequency during the peak times. To my surprise and shock, the new proposal shows that our line will drop to every 30 minutes from the Brooklyn shops to Kingston. I am absolutely opposed to this change. I appreciate that there’ll be a doubling of buses from Brooklyn to the CBD, but I do not agree with having to wait 30 minutes for a bus coming from Kingston. How about the peak services during the morning and the afternoon? Some of the buses are running already pretty full between Kingston and Brooklyn (and this is with buses every 7 to 9 mins).

    On the other hand I can see that line 29 is being upgraded as a mix between the old lines 21 and 29. Still I don’t believe the system will be so well coordinated for the line 29 to lift passengers from Kingston to Brooklyn, for passengers to be transferred on to buses coming from Kowhai Park which will continue into the CBD. This would work if there was a high frequency of every 7-10 minutes, but with your proposal I believe it will not be acceptable.

     
  5. Cr Daran Ponter (Regional Council), 17. February 2012, 11:06

    Thanks Kent, Our intention is to make sure that people are informed and to encourage them to make submissions about the good, the bad and the ugly! We are not looking to sell the bus review as such, though I would say that its intentions of trying to address congestion in the Inner-City are admirable.

    Diego – The issues you raise with over-crowding on the proposed D1 service to Kingston have now been raised at a number of the community meetings we have attended, including the Makara – Ohariu Community Board last night. Clearly, if buses are already full during peak times on the existing route (7) and we are proposing less frequency then we have a clear issue. I will take this up with the transport planners, but encourage you to make a submission also.

     
  6. Tony Randle, 17. February 2012, 13:20

    Kent: Thanks for your comments about how Crs Ponter and Bruce are stepping-up … they are spot on.

    Just why does the regional council think suburban meetings in the middle of the day will engage with the community? The bus commuters who are most affected by this review are likely at work in the CBD. . . that is what bus commuters do! Evening meetings, such as those arranged by Crs Ponter and Bruce, at least give commuters a real chance to meet and understand the review proposals.

    Cr Glensor states Lambton/Willis bus lanes carry “at least 140 buses per hour in the morning and evening peak” and, to reduce the obvious congestion, proposes “to shift some peak services on to the waterfront”. In fact, as outlined in the consultant’s report, “some” is actually “all but one” ! “The exception is the sole trolley peak-only service (36, identical to current 6), which would need to be retained on the Golden Mile”. In fact about 20 peak buses/hour would shift to travel via Customhouse and Jervois Quays and the consultant believed this route would “be at least as fast as the Golden Mile. We expect this routing to be at least 2 minutes faster.”

    Can he be correct? Well, even though also at capacity at peak time, compared to the Golden Mile the Quays generally flow OK at the moment (although the evenings are often stop/start). Of course they keep cars moving largely because they don’t have large numbers of buses stopping in the left hand lanes to offload or load passengers! With the peak hour buses on them, the Quays will, in effect, be reduced from 3 lanes to 2 lanes and jammed each way during rush hour with huge impact on car and bus commuters alike.

    As a side note, people should know the consultant recommended buses travelling south should go down Featherston Street because “the east side of Customhouse Quay is too far from .. commute destinations, and too isolated by the difficult crossing of the Quay, to feel like an acceptable point for CBD arrival and departure.” But GWRC rejects this important element.

    The review claims shifting the peak bus routes is “the only viable solution”, but is this true ?

    It must first be noted that the redesigned network “has the side effect of reducing peak volumes on the Golden Mile by … up to 45 to 55 buses per hour in the peak periods.” “a dramatic cut from existing.” So there will be significantly less buses on the golden mile anyway (assuming the other changes proceed) and so there will be less need to shift peak services onto the quays.

    Secondly, “the prevailing guideline” for “facilities similar to Lambton Quay” is “usually that they can be expected to operate reasonably up to a volume of 60 buses per hour or one per minute (TCRP, 1995).” Yes the American textbook says 60 buses per hour is the limit, yet there are many bus corridors across the world that support the levels currently on the Golden Mile. They do so by real investment in modern traffic management and bus priority systems.

    So where is the “invest in advanced bus priority” option? The bus investment option is not there because, last year, GWRC removed the $3-4M/year bus investment capital budget to fund its purchase of the Wellington region’s railway stations and trains? I believe this is the real reason why the review consultant had to suggest shifting peak routes to reduce Golden mile congestion (and other poor recommendations) … He had to deliver all changes within the current budget. This really is a “let’s move the deck-chairs on the Titanic” service review and a huge disappointment for what is the region’s single most important PT service.

    This major review has come up with many poor recommendations (which I may comment on later) but shifting the peak bus routes onto Customhouse/Jervois Quays must surely be the worst. This is a cure that will kill the patient.

    To everyone who wants to keep a decent bus service. Get a submission now and vote against these changes before it is too late.

     
  7. Diego Hurwitz, 17. February 2012, 15:41

    Thank you Mr. Ponter for your answer.

    I filled in a submission to Metrolink online. Is that sufficient or do I need to do anything else/different?

    Regards,

    Diego

     
  8. Wellington.Scoop, 17. February 2012, 16:42

    Here are some of the community meetings, to which the public are invited, being organised by Councillors Ponter and Bruce:

    Tuesday 21st February 7.45pm –
    Glenside Progressive Association 36 Glenside Rd, Glenside
    Thursday 23rd February 7.30pm –
    Wilton Residents Association
    Sunday 26th February 2.00pm –
    Wellington Residents Coalition, Newtown Community Hall
    Monday 27th February 7.00pm –
    Aro Valley Residents Association, Aro Valley Community Centre
    Tuesday 28th February 7.00pm –
    Newlands Residents, Newlands Community Centre
    Thursday 1 March 7.30pm –
    Berhampore: 21 Luxford Street, St Cuthbert’s Church hall
    Monday 5 March 7.30pm –
    284 The Parade, Island Bay; Wellington South Baptist Church hall
    Wednesday 7th March 7.30pm –
    Ngaio Progressive Association, Ngaio Town Hall
    Monday 12 March 7.30pm –
    Newtown: Corner Colombo and Rintoul Streets, Newtown (Newtown Community and Cultural Centre)
    Tuesday 13th March 7.30pm –
    Kilbirnie-Lyall Bay-Maupuia Peninsular; Kilbirnie Community Centre
    Wednesday 14th March 7.30pm –
    Churton Park Residents Association, Churton Park School Hall
    Monday 19th March TBC –
    Johnsonville Residents Association

     
  9. Cr Daran Ponter (Regional Councillor), 17. February 2012, 19:46

    Hi Diego,

    The submission form is at: http://www.gw.govt.nz/wellington-city-bus-review/

    You might just want to check you filled in the right one.

    cheers

    Daran

     
  10. The City is Ours, 17. February 2012, 23:33

    Yes Wellington you have just wasted $ 11million dollars. According to the Land Transport Act, regional authorities should review public transport services every 3 years. The Public Transport Quality Team at Greater Wellington told us there are no concerns with the reliability of Wellington buses. This is a knee jerk reaction to the failure they call the Golden Mile Improvements and does not help when you consider there was a “do nothing” option. Option B: Wakefield Street NOW!

     
  11. Cr Daran Ponter (Regional Councillor), 18. February 2012, 9:52

    Hi Maria (The City is Ours): The Wellington Bus Review is totally unrelated to the issue of the Manners St/Wakefield St issue. We are putting 140 buses per hour through the Golden Mile . The Golden Mile is only capable of taking 60-80 buses per hour without congestion. Irrespective of whether buses are routed through Manners Mall or Wakefield St, we still have a problem with congestion which can really only be solved one of two ways:

    a) Consolidating routes and maximising the patronage on buses traversing the Golden Mile (i.e. reducing the number of empty and half-empty buses); and/or
    b) Moving to a higher capacity vehicle such as bendy buses or light rail through the Golden Mile.

    Either way, both of these options would reduce the number of transport vehicles in the Golden Mile, which I would have thought you would be supportive of?

     
  12. The City is Ours, 18. February 2012, 18:40

    The fact remains that the Golden Mile Improvements are for the most part, as confirmed by a safety audit by Beca Infrastructure Engineers, unsuitable for safe use by buses and/or pedestrians pending alterations the length of the GM.

    http://www.wellington.govt.nz/projects/new/goldenmile/pdfs/goldenmile-audit-response.pdf

    Whether you put 60 or 140 buses per hour through the Golden Mile makes no difference – the risk remains. An earlier report by Jones Lang LaSalle (page 16) warned the council about the increased risk to pedestrian safety by opening a mall to traffic, let alone buses.

    http://www.wellington.govt.nz/projects/new/goldenmile/pdfs/retailassessment.pdf

    Had it come earlier, this bus review may have had an impact on the decision by the city council to let buses through Manners Mall. Had GW/WCC applied road safety at the planning stage, as required by the Land Transport Act, we would not be having this conversation.

    http://www.wellington.govt.nz/plans/policies/walking/pdfs/2008-walking-policy.pdf

    The congestion is a direct result of bringing the bus routes together with no option to overtake as was previously the case on the Dixon Street/Wakefield Street route. But tell me what is being done about the promised state of the art bus stops and the oversized RTI units in the CBD?

     
  13. Cr Daran Ponter (Regional Councillor), 20. February 2012, 8:14

    Hi Maria: Of course you are overstating the perview of the BECA report. It would have had no bearing on the the Manners Mall route, but would undoubtedly have informed safety on the route.

    The larger Real Time Information (RTI) signs were put on hold awaiting the BECA report. The GWRC is awaiting advice from the WCC on the placement of the RTI signs. following the BECA report. I would be hopeful that they will be in place in the next few months. My understanding is that there will be no change to the physical dimensions of the signs but that some features are being redesigned (for example there is a real problem with glare on the Manners Street sign).

     
  14. The City is Ours, 20. February 2012, 10:31

    Thanks Daran. Where can we find a copy of the plan showing where GW is going to place these RTI units? How is GW going to comply with its own bus stop standards and deliver comfortable shelters and seating when there is insufficient room?

    A survey by the City is Ours in February 2011 generating 143 returns – question 13: ” Is the bus stop outside Burger King satisfactory?”

    54 YES. 75 NO. 14 Don’t Know.

     
  15. Tony Randle, 20. February 2012, 13:23

    Daran previously stated – “congestion which can really only be solved one of two ways:
    a) Consolidating routes and maximising the patronage on buses traversing the Golden Mile (i.e. reducing the number of empty and half-empty buses); and/or
    b) Moving to a higher capacity vehicle such as bendy buses or light rail through the Golden Mile.”

    I do not think this is strictly correct. The problem with the peak hour bus services through the Golden Mile is not really CONGESTION (literally not enough space for the buses to travel) but UNRELIABILITY (not able to keep on schedule). After all, one lane should (and in many cities does) take more than one bus/minute.

    Trying to reduce the Golden Mile bus count to 60-80 buses per hour may improve reliability of the core routes but only at the expense of peak bus reliability (operating along the waterfront with a longer route, longer walking access times and without any bus priority. Having buses stopping on the Quays will stuff up peak hour traffic on this corridor . . . bus and car commuters will both be worse off.

    The real issue is not the numbers of buses but keeping slow buses on schedule. International best practice proves this can be managed by:

    * Improved electronic ticketing to speed people on/off the buses and properly designed bus stops with correct location and capacity to load/offload passengers. Golden Mile congestion is at the bus stops, not in the lanes. Redesigned stops that let the buses pull out of the bus lane would help a lot . . . It is crazy that Lambton Quay has pull over parking for cars and vans but buses stop on the bus lane!

    * Having the ability for buses to pass, esp. at bus stops, along the whole corridor to enable peak “skip stop” express services. This is very common overseas and would significantly improve capacity.

    * Having suburb-CBD-suburb bus routes that travel through the CBD unloading and loading at the same time. This happens East-West (such as trolley Route 3) but not North South (although diesel bus Routes 43/44 get close) because the Northbound trolleys all have to stop at the Railway Station. In fact the core bus routes should include direct travel from Johnsonville to Kilbernie (the “official growth spine” according to the Wellington Strategy) and Newtown (hospital), but you can only do this service using diesel buses. In essence, the reason the bus review recommends shifting Mana peak buses from the North onto Jervois Quay is really because the Stagecoach Trolleys cannot get to Johnsonville !

    * Having a top quality Intelligent Traffic System that tracks buses and, especially, keeps the lights Green for a bus behind schedule so it can catch up. Such systems do work and do enable a reliable bus service at the volumes deemed excessive by the Bus Review. One of the best examples is the “Metro-Rapid” system operated in Los Angeles along Wiltshire and Ventura Bvlds. Ironically, the GWRC Real-time Information Project is working towards this capability but the review just ignores this.

    * Having a strong programme of continuous improvement where the detailed bus tracking information is reviewed and bottlenecks are identified and addressed.

    Two further points:

    * Remember, the RELIABILITY is the most import characteristic of a good PT system . . . commuters will not mind a slow peak service if they can rely on it being on-time.

    * When it comes to maximising capacity, the trolleys are probably the limiting factor in the bus capacity on the Golden Mile because they cannot pass, and so a slow trolley holds everyone else up because the trolley behind cannot pass.

    It is unfortunate that the Bus Review could not consider these points … they are really the domain of the Spine Study. The GWRC “Central Area Bus Operational Review” by Opus in 2009 covered these issues/options when the MGCagney Review did not.

    Of course, the GWRC is doing these reviews in the wrong order. . . it would be better to complete the Spine Study (to recommend the long term PT strategy for the corridor) and the Fare Review (to recommend the way towards integrated ticketing) THEN sort out the operational bus services.

    I hope everyone recognises the bus review is fatally flawed. It has some great ideas but making major changes without a clear future direction will likely lead to failure. We are better off rejecting all the changes and waiting for the Spine Study conclusions. Better the devil you know than the one you don’t ;)

     
  16. traveller, 20. February 2012, 16:02

    A top-quality intelligent traffic lights system? If only we could have one for all the city’s traffic. Not just for buses. Wellington is full of disconnected lights – too often you get a green light and then see the next light turn to red as you approach. But the council seems unembarrassed by this inefficiency.

     
  17. Cr Daran Ponter (Regional Councillor), 20. February 2012, 18:45

    Hi Tony. I think your last point is actually the most important at this time – the order of the studies is around the wrong way – the Spine Study should come first and then the Bus Review.

    Unfortunately the GWRC sees the Spine Study as a long-term study – i.e. something to aim for rather than necessarily to start achieving immediately. Paul and I clearly have some work ahead of us to change this view amongst our colleagues.

    A slow down in the bus review by a few months could provide us with options that are highly relevant.

     
  18. Wombat, 21. February 2012, 11:02

    Hi Daran, I also agree with Tony that the Spine Study should be completed first. This should be followed by the Fare Review. Only after these are completed should there be a review of the bus routes. We should not put the cart before the horse, as appears to be happening with the current order of the reviews.

    Another point, I think that Wellington needs to have a unified fare structure, where you pay once to get from A to B, regardless of which companies/transport methods are involved. By this I mean that if someone is travelling from outer Johnsonville by bus (53) to the Johnsonville train station to the Wellington train station then by bus to Courtenay Place, then by bus to the Wellington Regional Hospital (as one journey, just using interconnecting services) there should be only one fare paid. At present you can travel from outer Johnsonville to Courtenay Place with one fare, using Newlands Buses – even though it has an interconnection at the Johnsonville train station. Then it is a second fare, using Go Wellington, to the hospital. Under the proposed new system (“better”, I think not) – it will take 1 Newlands Bus, 1 Trans Metro Train, and up to 2 Go Wellington Buses to do the same journey. Given that each interconnection will have a waiting time imposed, and each company requires a new fare, it will cost more, and require far more time to do the same trip. This will result in people taking their own cars into the city – which is the opposite of what an efficient public transport system should encourage. By the way, the example used is a real-life situation that somebody I know has to do regularly.

     
  19. Robert Miles, 26. February 2012, 19:23

    AS someone who has lived in Wellington for about 4 and half years on and off, my view is that the golden mile should be tram only with tram routes to Newtown, Island Bay, Miramar and the Airport. In terms of the short term future of the trolley routes – I would can the Aro Valley trolleys which have always been an operational absurdity. In the case of Seatoun I would keep them because it might be a future tram route with great tourist and commuter potential. Wellington’s trams should have been retained in the 1950s and 1960s with a tunnel under the airport. Even Mayor Kitts really believed so. It was absurd to introduce trolley buses in NZ in the 1950s, because the trolleys are only poor man’s trams with none of trams’ advantages. With trams you have a consistent route. At the most you only have to cross half the highway to get to a tram, you have a vastly smoother ride without the ugly kicking motion of most buses, and the potential for multiple use operation.
    Over the last couple of years I’ve been in Auckland and often reflect on the criminal decision to rip out NZ’s tram routes. Roads like Manukau road, Gt South Road, Mt Eden-Three Kings and Richmond Road and Jervois Quay thru College Hill and Herne Bay were perfectly suited for a continuation of Melbourne style tram routes.
    The destruction of NZ tram routes has much to do with the coming of managers from Liverpool, people dedicated to the destruction of tram systems. In the 1930s and 1940s, Liverpool developed one of the most advanced light rail systems in the world with hundreds of PCC type double deckers and huge mileage of trams running on independent segregated corridors. The destruction of the Liverpool tram systems was one of the most criminal acts in transport history (watch the hours of video on YouTube).

     
  20. Cr Daran Ponter (Regional Councillor), 26. February 2012, 19:51

    Hi Wombat,

    The GWRC are negotiating an integrated ticketing arrangement with Mana Coachlines and Go Wellington buses that will mean that people transferring from a Mana to a Mana service or a Go Wellington to a Go Wellington Service are charged only one fare. This has to be the case. I will not vote for a system that penalises users for making transfers that are not of their making.

    Unfortunately, a more universal integrated ticketing system eludes us, and this is likely to continue for approximately 5 years (I will do a separate post on this issue during the week explaining why this is). This means that for the interim a person travelling from the northern suburbs would still need to get separate tickets (or use separate cards) for the transfers from buses to and from the J’Ville line and from Mana Coachline services to Go Wellington services. I am keen to find a workaround for this situation – e.g. a transfer ticket – until we get proper integrated ticketing in place.

    If going to the hospital to North Wellington in an off peak scenario, the most efficient journey would appear to be:

    a) Transfer to H Route at Johnsonville
    b) Transfer from H Route to “A” Route at any point along the Golden Mile. “A” Route goes past the hospital.

    In the peak hours you would not require an interchange at Johnsonville, so the the only transfer would be from the Peak Hour bus to the “A” Route. The best place for this transfer under the proposals is likely to be the Railway Station as the peak routes are proposed to be moved onto the Waterfront.

     
  21. Cr Paul Bruce (Regional Councillor), 26. February 2012, 21:14

    Also in response to Wombat:

    There are ideal fare outcomes that probably need electronic ticketing, but some bulk fare products would provide a form of integrated ticketing
    1.  a cheaper off peak day pass that is usable on any service.
    2.  a monthly pass for a particular part of the network, regardless of what service you use. So Courtenay Place to the Hutt, or to North Wellington. With use in the CBD on any service.
     
    A Greater Wellington product called Kapiti Plus fare already allows a free bus connection when one has a train ticket.
     
    Another option would be to issue a certain number of free passes for other services when you buy a monthly pass. For example, if you buy a train monthly pass from Kapiti to Wellington, a book of 20 tickets could be provided with one zone tickets on any bus in the region.

    These type of products would cost very little to implement.

     
  22. Wombat, 27. February 2012, 11:28

    Thanks to Cr Paul Bruce & Cr Daran Ponter for their feedback. I will pass this information on to the person concerned. Regards

     
  23. mile, 11. March 2012, 14:08

    to Robert Miles:
    why would we want trams? why should we to turn wellington into another melbourne? roads are for rubber-tyred vehicles not flange-tyred tramcars. rail vehicles should run on a dedicated rail corridor not to mix with road traffic.

    i travelled on trams extensively in australia and europe. trams (inc some low floor “light rail” vehicles) are generally rough riding things with little suspension, slow and inflexible. to me tramway is a mode that does not make much sense. In the 50/60s almost every city in the world ditched out their tram system, not just cities in NZ.

     

Write a comment: