Draft Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan: Pre-Hearings Report

Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4 PART 1: SUBMISSION PROCESS ....................................................................................... 5 PART 2: SUBMITTERS TO BE HEARD: KEY POINTS ........................................................ 7 Tuesday 29 January 2013 (Auckland Central) ................................................................... 7 Wednesday 30 January 2013 (North Shore) .................................................................... 17 Friday 1 February 2013 (Henderson) ............................................................................... 22 Monday 4 February 2013 (Auckland Central) .................................................................. 28 Thursday 7 February 2013 (Manukau)............................................................................. 40 PART 3: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS BY TOPIC ........................................................... 50 Legal issues .................................................................................................................... 50 Timing relative to the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill ............................ 50 Significant response themes............................................................................................ 51 Network structure ......................................................................................................... 51 Fares and ticketing....................................................................................................... 52 Tuakau services ........................................................................................................... 53 Additional services and resource constraints ............................................................... 53 Chapter Issues ................................................................................................................ 54 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 54 Reasons for review ...................................................................................................... 54 Scope of the Plan......................................................................................................... 54 Chapter 2: Strategic Context ........................................................................................... 55 Factors influencing public transport use ....................................................................... 55 Statutory requirements ................................................................................................. 55 Other plans and strategies ........................................................................................... 55 Chapter 3: Our Current Public Transport System............................................................ 56 Terminology ................................................................................................................. 56 Benefits of public transport........................................................................................... 56 Chapter 4: What we want to achieve .............................................................................. 56 Vision, outcomes and objectives .................................................................................. 56 1

Measures and targets .................................................................................................. 57 Chapter 5: Key Directions ............................................................................................... 58 City Rail Link ................................................................................................................ 58 Ferry services .............................................................................................................. 58 Other modes ................................................................................................................ 59 Integration with walking and cycling ............................................................................. 59 Service categories ....................................................................................................... 60 Resource allocation ..................................................................................................... 61 Network focus on CBD ................................................................................................. 61 Extensions to frequent network .................................................................................... 61 Concerns with the network concept.............................................................................. 62 Chapter 6: Policies and Actions ...................................................................................... 63 Network structure policies (Section 6.1)........................................................................... 63 Operating period for frequent services ......................................................................... 63 Access distance to frequent service network ................................................................ 64 Land use integration .................................................................................................... 64 Integration with parking policies ................................................................................... 65 Integrated service network policies (Section 6.2) ............................................................. 65 Service layers nomenclature ........................................................................................ 65 Access distance ........................................................................................................... 65 Routing and interchange .............................................................................................. 65 Services to newly developing areas ............................................................................. 66 Service adjustments..................................................................................................... 67 Inter-regional services: Tuakau/Waikato ...................................................................... 67 Service quality policies (Section 6.3) ............................................................................... 68 Service reliability .......................................................................................................... 68 Travel speed and priority measures ............................................................................. 68 Customer service and driver training ............................................................................ 69 Vehicle standards ........................................................................................................ 69 Bikes on buses ............................................................................................................ 70 Smaller buses .............................................................................................................. 70 Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 70 Fares and ticketing policies (Section 6.4) ........................................................................ 71 Zone fare structure....................................................................................................... 71 Fare products............................................................................................................... 72 Fare levels and farebox recovery ................................................................................. 73 Incentives to use integrated tickets .............................................................................. 73 Fare concessions ......................................................................................................... 74 Off-peak pricing............................................................................................................ 75

Infrastructure policies (Section 6.5) ................................................................................. 75 Integration of infrastructure and service provision ........................................................ 75 Interchanges ................................................................................................................ 76 Customer facilities........................................................................................................ 76 Bus priorities ................................................................................................................ 77 Park and ride ............................................................................................................... 78 Integration of walking /cycling with public transport ...................................................... 78 Integration with parking ................................................................................................ 79 Customer interface policies (Section 6.6) ........................................................................ 79 Branding ...................................................................................................................... 80 Marketing ..................................................................................................................... 80 Information ................................................................................................................... 81 High quality travel experience ...................................................................................... 81 Assisting the transport disadvantaged policies (Section 6.7) ........................................... 81 Accessible network ...................................................................................................... 82 Accessible interchanges .............................................................................................. 82 School transport ........................................................................................................... 83 Concession fares for transport disadvantaged ............................................................. 84 Procurement and commercial services policies (Section 6.8) .......................................... 84 Legislative issues and PTOM contracts ....................................................................... 84 Partnership approach ................................................................................................... 85 Funding and prioritisation policies (Section 6.9) ............................................................... 86 Farebox recovery ......................................................................................................... 86 Monitoring and review policies (Section 6.10) .................................................................. 86 Chapter 7: Description of services .................................................................................. 87 Chapter 8: Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 87

INTRODUCTION
This report summarises the submissions received on the Draft Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP). A total of 719 submissions were received. Of these, 103 have indicated a wish to speak to their submissions at the public hearings, which have been set down for five days, commencing on 29 January 2013. The hearings schedule is shown in Attachment A. The body of this report is in three parts. Part 1 presents a brief analysis of the submissions received, the process that has been followed in analysing them, and the proposed timeline for finalising the RPTP following the public hearings. Part 2 summarises the main points raised by the submitters that are due to appear at the hearings, in order of appearance. Part 3 summarises all of the written submissions received by topic. These topic areas generally follow the structure of the Draft RPTP. For each topic area, the report: summarises the points raised by submitters in relation to the topic; discusses the initial officer response to those submission points; and presents officer recommendations on how the RPTP should address the points raised.

PART 1: SUBMISSION PROCESS

The Draft RPTP was issued for public comment on 5 October 2012, and public submissions closed on 5 November 2012. Submissions from local boards were accepted up until 30 November 2012, to enable the Boards to consider the Plan as part of their monthly meeting cycles. A total of 719 written submissions were received, 615 from individuals and 104 from organisations. Table 1 presents an analysis of submitter type. Copies of the full written submissions from all submitters have been provided to the Hearings Panel under separate cover. Table 1: Submissions received by submitter type Individual: general Individual: Tuakau Local Boards Other Council family Key transport stakeholders Public transport operators Transport sector organisations Other sector organisations Community groups & resident associations Local business associations Professional bodies/consultants Major destination organisations Other companies Total 329 286 21 4 7 4 8 17 12 11 5 8 7 719

Almost half of the individual submissions related to services to Tuakau: these have been summarised as individual: Tuakau in Table 1. Officers have reviewed each of the submissions and prepared comments that have formed the basis of the discussion and recommendations in Part 3 below. Auckland Transport has established a Hearings Panel which will conduct public hearings on the submissions from 29 January to 7 February 2013. The Hearings Panel includes two Auckland Transport Board members (Cr Mike Lee (Chair), and Paul Lockey); Peter Clark (General Manager, Strategy and Planning), and Mark Lambert (Manager, Public Transport Operations). Copies of this report will be made available to all submitters in advance of the hearings. In line with the requirements of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, the hearings will be open to the public, and copies of all submissions are available for public inspection. 5

Following deliberations by the Hearings Panel, a Hearings Panel report will be prepared, together with a set of recommended amendments to the Draft RPTP. Subject to this process, it is intended to submit the Hearings Panel report and recommendations to the Auckland Transport Board for consideration at its March 2013 meeting. The final RPTP will be formally adopted by the Auckland Transport Board once these decisions have been made. Submitters will then be sent a summary of the decisions and the changes made in response to the submissions received.

PART 2: SUBMITTERS TO BE HEARD: KEY POINTS

The key points from the written submissions of those wishing to be heard are summarised below, in order of appearance. Submitter numbers are provided in brackets after the submitter name for cross referencing purposes.

Tuesday 29 January 2013 (Auckland Central)

Waitemata Local Board (Submission 900) 09:00 - 09:20 The vision and outcomes of the draft Plan are supported. It is considered that they set an appropriate direction for the development of Aucklands public transport system over the next ten years. Supports farebox recovery policy that aligns with the national 50% recovery rate target to be achieved through growing patronage and carefully managing service costs rather than increasing fares Supports infrastructure investments that promote walking and cycling. (Policy 5.6) should be strengthened through the provision of cycle parking at stations and future interchanges, and through investigation into the provision of other infrastructure (i.e. bikes racks on front of buses). New Lynn station is a good example of quality cycle parking facility. Recommend referencing the Auckland Plans carbon dioxide emissions reduction target and detailing the way in which the Plan will help achieve this target (e.g. lower emissions buses and a shift to alternative fuels when such technology is cost-effective). Implementation of the draft Plan should not impede Auckland Transport in taking urgent action to ensure all bus shelter infrastructure is fit for purpose.

Albert-Eden Local Board (902) 09:20 - 09:40 Agree in principle with the policy framework, the key policy areas and objective. Primary concerns relate to the impact of stage boundaries and the potential increase in stage fares that will be required to ensure revenue is not reduced. Fare stage boundaries can have undesired consequences. Impacts on commuters travelling some distance to park in residential streets close to a fare boundary will no doubt continue. Recommend a comprehensive ticket fare analysis project based on distance and not fare stage boundaries prior to implementing the new bus routes. This should include a minimum and maximum fare based on a sliding scale distance-based fare. The transition hubs for buses and trains require careful consideration. Support initiatives to make the passenger experience as painless as possible especially when transferring from one service to another.

Orakei Local Board (892) 10:00 - 10:20 The plan should show greater detail on which modes will account for the 140 million trip target. Greater transparency around the net cost of the CRL should be included.

Disturbing to note that the Orakei Local Ward has very little coverage (Tamaki Drive and Remuera Road are the only routes appearing in the proposed frequent service network). Residents have consistently asked for smaller buses that more suitable for narrow established streets Orakei Residents have very limited access to the rail without inclusion of an additional rail station in the Purewa Valley Selwyn Station should be included as a future rail station to be constructed within the timeframe of the ARPTP. Feeder bus services to the Orakei , Selwyn and Remuera stations should then be included. Infrastructure: indicative designs of the type of amenity that will be constructed at key transfer points should be included in the Final ARPTP. Support greater transparency around the publicising of the cost to ratepayers of subsidising public transport.

Waiheke Local Board (898) 11:00 - 11:20 Supports the general thrust of the RPTP especially a network approach to making an integrated PT system that is more efficient and effective thereby increasing patronage. Supports simple fare structure (zones) and Integrated ticketing. However, regional zoning and integrated ticketing should not exclude Waiheke. Buses receive a subsidy as an incentive to move commuters out of their cars. This policy should apply regionally without exception. Waiheke buses are only subsidised in the evenings. Not only are there no subsidies for Waiheke ferry commuters, but there is also an additional wharf tax to pay for upkeep of the necessary infrastructure. Clarity and certainty needed that wharf tax is used for Waiheke LB wharves and is not being used to subsidise other wharves. Big ambitions come with big price tags. Overall council borrowings set to almost double to in the next 5 years, without even providing for the CRL. Britomart is Aucklands foremost transport interchange. Its position needs to be strengthened in light of conflicting priorities in the City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan to pedestrianise this area. The Down Town ferry terminal and wharf area is an example of poor interchange arrangements. The situation is chaotic, longstanding and calls for remediation. The social benefits of the Supergold card have been well documented. If any change is contemplated then it should only be in the timing, say between 3.30pm and 6.30pm to allow for the evening commute. After 6.30pm the Supergold card concession should continue.

Great Barrier Local Board (901) 11:20 - 11:40 Board would like to see the establishment of a subsidised public bus service for Great Barrier Island. There is no formal, timetabled and regular public bus service at present. Many people have no cars. The islands low socio-economic status, and small far flung communities make travel very difficult for locals. A service running on main highway from Tryphena to Port Fitzroy, and connecting with ferries and flights would be a logical starting point. The Board sees a bus service as a key element to its economic revitalisation agenda.

Robert Coup (415) 11:40 - 11:50 Disappointing to see the continued existence of monthly passes. Season passes distort behaviour and force consumers to make an upfront decision which may cost them later. Fare capping rewards the user by ensuring that they pay no more than the fare associated with traditional periodical product via the establishment of daily, weekly or monthly fare caps. (e.g. London capping system with Oyster). Auckland now moving to integrated ticketing, and we can extend the concepts of fare capping further. Automatically cap fares on a rolling daily, weekly, and monthly basis, based on peak/off-peak and zones travelled. Guarantee that the user gets the *best* deal, just as if they could accurately predict their travel over an entire month. Don't need to make decision upfront. AT already provides Google Transit feeds for distributing timetable information to external organisations. These data feeds and interfaces need to be supported and extended: Make sure the data feeds are as reliable, complete, and up to date as the AT website and planner. Open licensing of transit information. Auckland should be a leader in this space, and leverage as much development and technology from overseas as we possibly can.

Carl Rosel (230) 11:50 - 12:00 No written comments provided

Cycle Action Auckland (588) 12:00 - 12:10 To achieve transformational change in transport behaviour, bikes must be considered a serious transport mode, an integral component of the public transport system. PT users need options other than driving to an interchange when it is too far to walk. Enabling PT users to ride a bike to their nearest frequent service interchange will dramatically increase the interchange catchment. Encouraging PT users to cycle to interchanges requires simple and relatively low cost actions: o Sufficient secure, sheltered, close and visible bike parks at each frequent service interchange. o Bike racks on every bus o Cycle lanes leading to and from each frequent service interchange. o Direct off-road cycleways. Easier and less expensive to add cycle infrastructure when installing new trains, remodeling transport interchanges or road intersections etc., than it is to retrofit it at a later date. Requests that AT states specifically that bike transport will be integrated into the RPTP Requests that the RPTP includes in Policy 5.6 - actions: 1. allocation of sufficient and significant resource and funds to support these vulnerable and valuable members of the transport community. 2. actual details and a schedule for the infrastructure and activity that is planned as part of Policy 5.6. Hope to see the final Regional Public Transport Plan include recognition of Public Bikes as a Public Transport mode, and implementation of a Public Bike Hire Network

Baseisth Rai (560) 12:10 - 12:20 At present, fare is on stage basis. Even if people travel just for a short distance they pay for full stage. It will be nice, fair if charged on distance basis, not on stage basis. I go three times in a week to Greenlane Hospital and I have to be there by 7.00am. Its good for normal weekdays, but no service on public holiday.

Tamaki Drive Protection Society Inc (401) 12:20 - 12:30 Neutral towards the proposed network. It serves persons living close to the network, but does not include new routes to access persons who face a long hilly walk to a bus. Higher frequency will benefit current bus travellers. To attract persons who currently must use cars there must be a large increase in park and ride facilities. Unclear from the Draft Plan if this is intended, or where such facilities will be located. No account is taken of routes for taxis or for a system of minibuses. Unclear if all passengers disembark at local Interchanges or if they only disembark from Connector Routes and then catch the Frequent bus into the city. No indication of whether the new system will require a greater public subsidy, or reduce the amount of public subsidy. Vulnerable routes have not been identified. Alternative routes for the Connector buses or transport solutions should be devised for all vulnerable routes. For example: Tamaki Drive is prone to road closures Network interchanges. Where will intermediate and local interchanges be located? Will these require additional land for facilities in villages and centres such as St Heliers, Mission Bay or Glen Innes? What will the facilities include?

John Binsley (247) 12:30 - 12:40 On p21 and 59 is mentioned the problem of traffic congestion but no programme is presented to deal with it. Suggest that all unrestricted or time controlled parking on frequent service routes should be subject to bus priority rush hour restrictions. At present unrestricted parking can be found on major bus routes permanently occupied all day by the cars of suburban commuters denying the space to all other road users reducing routes to a single lane at all times. This is a major cause of congestion.

Camilla Abernathy-Ardern (428) 12:40 - 12:50 If the connections were viable and reliable this would be an excellent plan. An integrated card and cash fare system is a very good idea. Expecting to make money or break even is unrealistic. Poem attached to submission

Karen Brown (441) 12:50 - 13:00 If the connections were viable and reliable this would be an excellent plan Integrated ticketing in Auckland is well overdue. However, please do not use this as an excuse to dramatically increase prices.

10

Please do not make the bus fares under the proposed zonal fare system too expensive. Surely it is better to make them as cheap as possible, in order to encourage people to regularly use the transport system. Simpler Connected Network. I am particularly pleased to see "reduced waiting times" in this list. This would be fantastic. Disappointed that the Outer Link bus is not included in the intended 2016 network. This is an appreciated and well-used service and should not be discontinued. A Waterview feeder bus would be great. How about using current technology and linking feeder bus and train by GPS? The feeder buses would not have to be large ones D3 at Britomart is a wind trap. Could be improved by adding more shelter. Wish list: * More regular buses * Keep fares low * Comfortable and safe buses * Integrated ticketing * Vastly improved bus shelters and seating

Bus & Coach Association New Zealand (518) 13:50 - 14:10 Supports the concepts underlying the proposed network plan, in particular proposals to simplify the route structure and provide a core network of frequent services supported by lower frequency connector services, which together will provide an integrated network. Implementation will require many existing users to change long-established travel patterns. The planning and implementation of changes will need to be handled with exceptional care and a real determination to ensure that the changes do not result in loss of patronage. Each individual service change should proceed only if there is a positive answer to the question will this change save customers time or money? Successful implementation critically dependent on the timely provision of high quality infrastructure. RPTP should include a detailed funding and construction programme for interchange facilities and bus priority measures. Supports in principle the proposal to transition to a zonal fare system, once AIFS bedded in. Zonal fares will be simpler for users, should encourage more patronage, and will be necessary to facilitate the simplified route structure. Note however that there is considerable uncertainty as to the effects of zonal fare system on farebox revenue. Policy 4.3 should include actions to set up joint process with operators to model the farebox revenues under different zonal fare scenarios, and from that to determine a new zonal fare structure and fares. Recommend Policy 4.5 action b be reworded to read Conduct regular annual reviews of farebox recovery, using the formula set out in Appendix 4, to determine what fare adjustments are necessary to maintain farebox recovery targets. The wording in the draft RPTP introduces extraneous factors. The RPTP should go much further to ensure conformity with the provisions of the LTMA Bill PTOM: identification of like for like units is particularly important to our members. Concerned that the units proposed in the draft RPTP do not include units which are sufficiently like to their current commercial services. Recommend that the draft RPTP is reviewed to ensure it meets as many as possible of the requirements of section 119 of the LTMA Bill, and includes a process (including consultation) and a timetable for incorporating any of those requirements which cannot as yet be met; that , the RPTP include a policy on the process for establishing units; and that this policy should provide for the identification of services which will make up like for like units Target for passenger boardings in 2022 represents a compound annual growth rate of less than 4% per annum. This seems rather unambitious, given recent patronage growth. The RPTP should incorporate stretch targets.

11

Opposed to Policy 3.4 action a that AT may require bus quality standards that are additional to those specified in NZTAs Requirements for Urban Buses (RUB). Different standards will undermine standardisation and negate the potential for cost savings. Policy 5.3 appropriate access charges for bus, rail and ferry facilities: Such charges are likely to result in an unnecessary and inefficient money go round. Comments also apply to charges in Policy 8.7 (customer service and information services). No legal basis for levying charges on exempt services without the consent of the operators concerned. Policy 7.3: AT commitment to providing school bus services should be expressed more strongly. Policy 8.4: Oppose the proposal in action d for all units affected by a network change to be re-tendered where agreement cannot be reached. Should include a mediation or arbitration process. Different specifications of information are provided under Policy 3.6 and Policy 8.4. BCA objects to requirement to provide information on service inputs and cost efficiency. Policy 8.3: in addition to the exempt services which are listed, a considerable number of commercial school bus services in Auckland. These will presumably become exempt services once the new legislation comes into effect. The formula set out in Appendix 4 for calculating farebox recovery ratio differs in detail from the formula set out by NZTA in its National Farebox Recovery Policy.

Stephen Greenfield, Auckland Transport Consultancy (470) 14:10 - 14:20 In so far as your draft plan has copied my proposal given to ARTA, the ARC, and ACC first in 2007, then to Auckland Transport and Auckland Council over the past 2 years of course I support it. It is absolutely unacceptable that it is taking so long to implement the basics. A simplified network with frequent regular schedules is absolutely imperative and an integral part of the SUPERMAXX proposal. SUPERMAXX is based on a 10 minute frequency on primary routes which offers a better service than your 15 minute suggestion while still overall reducing costs. An integrated single ticket across all modes is absolutely essential. Totally opposed to the zonal system suggested in the RPTP. While it is an improvement on the current fare stage system it still keeps anomalies for people travelling short distances across zone boundaries.

Viaduct Harbour Holdings Limited (557) 14:20 - 14:30 The physical route maps are at such a small scale that they are not readable. This makes the analysis of impact on Wynyard Quarter very difficult. More detailed route maps should be included in the proposal to match the descriptions in the appendices. Wynyard Quarter is shown as a major interchange location, but there is no diagram showing where or how this would operate. Number of bus routes proposed to pass through Wynyard Quarter should be significantly reduced. Analysis of the route and frequency table in the appendix shows 24 routes that pass by Wynyard Quarter, with around 110 movements per hour in the peak direction, compared with 85 now. The three access points to Wynyard Quarter onto Fanshawe Street, (Beaumont, Daldy and Halsey Streets) are critical to the successful development and operation of the Quarter. Any extraneous traffic should be avoided and unnecessary buses entering and leaving the Quarter

12

fall into that category. If the standard maximum walk distance of 400m is adopted, then all buildings south of Madden Street could be serviced from buses in Fanshawe Street. We support the proposed fares and ticketing policy

Auckland Greypower Association Inc (556) 14:30 - 14:40 Support the direction of the proposed Public Transport network with the following reservations: Benefits must be viewed in wider context of: seniors income capacity to participate and access services; central governments commitment or lack of it to funding; How access to centralised health services away from the central core can still be accessed by East -West direct services. Communication strategies needed to successfully engage with senior networks. Regarding the introduction of the HOP card, it is the seniors who are struggling to cope with this change the most and the publicity has not been directed at this age group. Newmarket train station toilets are off limits to people before they buy a ticket Growth of cycling has been held back by the lack of suitable transport infra-structure, such as racks on buses, and suitable vertical racks on trains. Vehemently opposed to any reduction in the Gold Card subsidies. Any change will reduce patronage and have critical flow on effects socially, and in the health and community sectors, and even economically. Request the Mayors office develop a policy directive on the removal of the Gold Card and student concessions.

Margaret and Garth Harris (562) 14:40 - 14:50 Disadvantages of not being able to travel post 3pm on the ferry to or from Waiheke. Waiheke residents totally reliant on the ferry. For Waiheke residents the transport plan which purports to improve the life of the residents of Auckland city will in effect achieve quite the opposite for seniors if the post 3 pm concession is removed for ferry travel on the Waiheke route. Better idea: negotiate a rate with Fullers which means AT and the government do not have to pay so much.

Helen Jermyn, 50+Cycling (395) 14:50 - 15:00 There is no mention of special provision on trains or buses for bikes. Empty buses might be the result of scrapping or trimming youth and student concessions, plus the super gold card. Anxious that the public get the opportunity to comment on the proposed review of concession fares for youth and students and Super Gold card carriers. The bus route 007 from point Chevalier to St Heliers has been trimmed to stop at Ellerslie. This will mean that passengers coming from the Eastern Bays are facing a very long journey to get to Greenlane hospital. Services from Helensville are not included.

13

Elisabeth Van Alkemade (552) 15:00 - 15:10 Agree with the Grey Power submission Lack of convenient east to west routes or west to east routes. It should not take two buses from say Royal Oak to get to St Luke's or from Onehunga in the same direction. Note that the 007 bus from Pt Chevalier is no longer there. At the Newmarket railway station the toilets could only be accessed for train passengers. Please sort out this irrational lack of availability of the toilets promptly. People will only use PT if it is frequent and reasonably priced. May be a good idea to route some bus traffic away from busy centres where stations are to facilitate the progress of buses which would be held up going through busy traffic hubs.

Community and Social Issues Sub Committee, Auckland Greypower (584) 15:10 - 15:30 Support the proposed network system and the Fares and Integrated ticketing but with the following reservations: Maintaining the Super Gold Card transport subsidy, so seniors can travel from 9am onwards, and into the evenings is an important provision to ensure social goals within the Auckland Plan are able to be realised and seniors access to health services guaranteed. Request the Mayors office develop a policy directive on the removal of the concession Request that Greypower representatives across the region are able to have direct input at the Auckland Transport policy discussions established to review concession fares. More efforts to accommodate cyclists still need to be made with bus racks and vertical racks in carriages. There is a sense in which changes like the HOP card were introduced with no specific communication messages for seniors, and consequently they are the group least able to cope and requiring considerable assistance.

Anthony Blaschke (463) 15:40 - 15:50 One aspect that has not been looked at is the welfare of the operating staff, that is, the bus drivers themselves. Concerning the workforce of NZBUS: the drivers have been constantly exhorted to give the best of themselves for the sake of the great vision that is Auckland Transport - yet the physical conditions and environment under which they operate has been and currently is so far from satisfactory that most drivers are not of a mind to contribute to this vision.

Alan Bray (467) 15:50 - 16:00 304 buses often run later, some bus stops have no seats or shelters. Need buses that travel from Mangere to Pukekohe, to Henderson, to North Shore, to St Heliers (without changing buses). Some drivers don't stick to the time tables: Gold Card holders 24/7; One fare for all. In Edinburgh you travel for 1.40 = 24/7 distance doesn't matter.

14

Auckland Branch - Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand (539) 16:00 - 16:20 We support the development of interchange facilities. We urge engagement with disabled people to ensure their logical, safe and effective design to meet the needs of all users. Appropriate wayfinding will be required to enable blind people to navigate through interchange centres. No matter how accessible future PT might become, unless safe and smooth footpaths are provided together with safe road crossings, most blind and low vision residents will continue to stay at home. Recommend that AT increases its resources for safe pedestrian access to footpaths and road crossings for the benefit of all Aucklanders. RTS 14: Guidelines for Blind and Vision-impaired Pedestrians provides best practice design and installation principles. In principle, wherever electronic information is provided in print, then it should also be provided simultaneously by way of audio announcements. Request all buses and trains have automated audio announcements of each upcoming stop Frustration that efforts to have the journey planner made accessible have failed. Recommend a policy be established, through engagement with disabled people, for setting the maximum subsidy for total mobility trips. Current subsidy is not sufficient to meet 50% of the cost of a trip from Papakura to the CBD. We plead with Auckland Transport to develop a strategic plan of services for disabled people with implementation dates and costs.

Auckland International Airport Limited (543) 16:30 - 16:40 Acknowledge the need to protect for a future rapid transit route to and from the airport. Important to address the improvements to bus-based public transport that will be needed in the interim. Auckland Airport supports the Draft Plans overall approach to PT in Auckland. Supports the proposed integrated network structure. Passengers react well to a consistent, reliable, high frequency service. The Airbus service is a good example. Draft Plan needs to place greater emphasis on the role of the airport in the regions transport system. The growth of the airport will mean that, increasingly, public transport will need to focus on meeting demand for travel to and from the airport. No recognition of the existing Airbus connection between the airport and the CBD in the descriptions of the frequent network in Chapter 5. Support the concept of other frequent route(s) connecting the airport to other key centres such as Onehunga and Manukau, but further discussion needed on how they should operate. No supporting connector services in the airport area over the next 10 years: this should be revisited. Support the decision to implement changes in south Auckland as Stage 1. Would like to see more information in the Plan about planned improvements to bus priorities on key routes to the airport (including Dominion Road, Mt Eden Road, SH20, and the proposed frequent route from Manukau to the airport). Arrangements for interchange facilities at Onehunga are unclear. The MUL is incorrectly shown around the Airport.

Catherine Harland (572) 16:40 - 16:50 Comments relate to the effect that the network structure and the policies proposed will have on specific areas of service.

15

AT seeking feedback on the proposed network structure as a whole, rather than on specific services and local routes. This means that once the whole network structure gains approval through this process, specific services will be designed to meet this, so service changes that dont fit this principled approach will be eliminated regardless of localised impacts. Would like specific examples of localised impacts examined to ensure that the policy / network pathway being proposed does not result in substantial adverse impacts for specific communities. Example of the need for community / town centre connections to be maintained is bus service along Tawa Road in Onehunga servicing the Oranga area. Future routes will require transfers and means going backwards. Testing an overall network policy change as suggested, needs to involve evaluation of samples of different areas which have a lower socio-economic profile and related transport disadvantages. This will reveal whether the on-the-ground application of the policy will have a neutral, positive or adverse impact. Suggest investigation of Oranga / Onehunga and a sample of other lower socio-economic areas, and use findings to influence the wording of the outcomes and measures of the network policies.

Adam White (417) 16:50 - 17:00 Opposed on the grounds of the wonky economics involved. Auckland needs some major structural and effective changes for the network to work. Need three rail loops, not one sometime in the future. Buses do not cut it from key locations - it makes us look just average The system is discriminatory, when there is no reason for it to be. Need to change the buses - in a physical sense - for environmental reasons - and to make them more comfortable. This whole exercise is a question of economics - why tag on socio-economics? - The whole picture must have socio-economic outcomes and inputs or it is not a model but an ideology.

16

Wednesday 30 January 2013 (North Shore)

Devonport Takapuna Local Board (884) 09:40 - 10:00 The draft ARPTP does not appear to consider the positive impact of PT on relieving congestion on local roads. Suggest that AT consider this issue more carefully, especially in regard to the Devonport peninsula (Lake Road), the Esmonde Road corridor, and strengthening east-west connections. Board supports the overall direction and staged implementation of the Plan, with the North Shore implementation being rolled out in 2014-15 Supports the underlying concept of providing a Frequent Service Network Supports in principle the concept of connector services, but stresses that for these to be effective, all bus services must be faultlessly reliable and punctual. Supports the concept of integrated ticketing and integrated fares for all modes Particularly concerned about the omission of ferries in the fare zone structure. Urges Policy 4.3 is amended to include ferries in the zone-based fare structure, rather than continuing the current point-to-point fare structure. Auckland Plan identifies lower Devonport as part of the City Fringe: Zone structure applying to the City Centre and Fringe should also apply to Devonport Takapuna is one of Aucklands Metropolitan Centres. Consider overlapping the City Centre zone to include Takapuna. Urges AT to consider a Shore Link service connecting Takapuna, Smales Farm / hospital, Wairau valley, Glenfield, Highbury, Northcote and back to Takapuna. Think carefully about ensuring buses are appropriately sized for the passengers carried. Consider operating more frequent services to specific destinations (e.g. hospitals) outside the hours of 7am to 7pm. Ensure planning for suitable terminus facilities happens in tandem with planning for the public transport network. Consider carefully where passengers embark and alight, and understand the reasons why.

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (887) 10:00 - 10:20 While we support a network of connected frequent services we do not want it to come at the expense of our current well patronised direct linkages within the North Shore. Would like to see some current special services extended. In particular, the Nightrider service extended from Albany station to Silverdale. In the next stage we need to ensure that residents still have choices that allow them to travel from a to b via the most direct route. Concerned that timetabling might mean that a simple journey i.e. from Browns Bay to Takapuna might require interchange at least 2 times. Congestion around bus stations at peak times will add even more time delay. Totally support integrated fares and zones. Agree with the zoned based fare structure suggested. Would like to see the current fare zone to Albany extended to Silverdale station. Look forward developing Silverdale park and ride station and to provide other park and ride facilities at appropriate sites along the route from Albany to Orewa. Large buses cause damage and sinking (evident in Browns Bay). Suggest we say more about the use of smaller buses and shuttles While real time information could be useful, we frequently hear complaints about inaccuracy Would like a better service to link retirement villages with shops and other services. We would like to see an extension of the current trial due to take place in the Warkworth area.

17

Support an increase in the level of farebox recovery. This can best be done by managing demand efficiently and effectively and building patronage wherever possible. Would like to see increased ferry services to Gulf Harbour particularly an off peak service being with bus linkages. Would like Northern Express service to extend beyond Britomart and service tertiary institutions, Auckland hospital and terminate at Newmarket. Consider the options for having WiFi access on all public transport facilities. Interchanging will create greater safety issues.

Kaipatiki Local Board (888) 10:20 - 10:40 Supports the underlying concept of providing a Frequent Service Network. Welcomes the inclusion of the ferry network; particularly pleased that the Beach Haven Ferry service will provide alternative PT options. Supports the concept of integrated ticketing but strongly believes that staging and pricing should apply equally across all modes. Offer a more direct bus link between the North Shore and the University of Auckland and AUT city campuses via the Port motorway exit. Asks AT to reconsider Highbury as a public transport interchange because it is not well suited as an interchange; Northcote a better location. Asks AT to emphasise East-West linkages in its future plans. Takapuna is a major Metropolitan Centre and will be a major source of employment and leisure for Kaipatiki residents in the future. Supports the proposed additional bus route connection between Glenfield and Beach Haven via Kaipatiki Bridge. Asks AT to integrate planning for suitable terminus facilities for North Shore commuters in Aucklands CBD with all planning for the public transport network. Consider the options for having WiFi access on all public transport facilities.

Faith Read (291) 11:00 - 11:10 The bus system as it is now so much improved from what it was. Worst fault is buses out of kilter and two arriving almost together, creating a long gap if you miss both.

Bera MacClement (367) 11:10 - 11:20 Strongly support having a frequent 15 minute service on the main routes. Strongly support the City Rail Link. Strongly support efforts to ensure that public transport runs reliably and on time. Have reservations about evening services that only run hourly. People need a service that will get them home after an evening out, i.e. one bus in each direction at about 10.30pm or later on almost all routes. In favour of an integrated ticket system: it simplifies transfers between operators and removes transfer penalties. The Northern Pass (integrated ticket) has been excellent. As a pensioner with a Gold Card, I would be willing to accept paying full fare during peak periods, provided I could be sure of a usable service, including one bus to get me home late at night.

18

Somewhat doubtful about the 50% cost recovery policy, because it would be likely to increase fares and discourage people from taking public transport

Paul Davis (397) 11:20 - 11:30 Comments relate to Objective 6, and specifically Auckland Transports brand. At present, the visible face of Auckland's public transport is a mish-mash of operator brands with no visible sense of a co-ordinated, interlinked service. A profusion of different liveries works against the aim of "a simpler, better connected public transport network that is more attractive to people who dont use it at present". To have our entire network carrying the same distinctive brand is a powerful way to demonstrate a connected network

Grey Power North Shore (512) 11:30 - 11:40 The availability of any efficient, regular and reliable public transport system is absolutely critical to the well being of Aucklands senior community. Isolation and loneliness is the major social problem for many older people and the ability to travel conveniently and economically on public transport is essential to maintaining a satisfying lifestyle. Greatly appreciative of the Auckland Council policy of providing an extension to the core SuperGold public transport travel concession to allow travel after 3.00pm. The benefits to the older community have been immense, the ability to travel conveniently and exceedingly cheaply has allowed many people to have a greatly expanded social and family life, and community contact. Significant economic spin off of the older communitys enhanced travel opportunities on the hospitality sector and community visitor destinations such as the Art Gallery and Waiheke Island. To remove the concession on the grounds it "is nationally inconsistent and unaffordable" is just not acceptable and will be strongly opposed by Grey Power at all political levels. Ask that a Grey Power representative be part of the Auckland Transport group that is established to review the concession fares per Policy 4.7

Massey University (535) 11:40 - 11:50 Supports the approach in general. While supportive of the intention to increase services and frequencies to the Campus, concerned at the increased cost of maintenance and upgrades of private infrastructure (internal roads) required to accommodate increased service frequencies on infrastructure that was not originally designed to accommodate it. Section 6.5 should include upgrades to the Campus facilities and infrastructure that form part of the proposed PT network. Strongly advocate against the wholesale removal of tertiary concessions for students. Increased fares for tertiary students would likely result in increased travel by private motorvehicle. The proposed new zone/ fare structure will likely result in cheaper fares for students to travel to the Campus from within its natural catchment boundaries. Massey University supports the proposed fare structure as it encourages greater intra-zone travel to other regional key destinations and facilities outside the CBD such as the Campus.

19

Generally speaking, the proposed network is still focused on getting people conveniently to the CBD. Acknowledges that the Draft RPTP proposes a greater provision and frequency of cross-town routes; however, questions the value of requiring multiple interchanges by users to access a major piece of regional infrastructure. Should be further investigation of frequent/ connector services from Westgate to Massey University and Takapuna to Massey University to reduce the need for multiple interchanges.

Dylan Snow (157) 11:50 - 12:00 Sooner that the single ticketing system for all types of PT can be implemented the better. Electrify all buses by 2025, as Montreal in Canada is doing. Would be a massive decrease in expenditure on bus maintenance and running costs, and reduction in emissions, noise pollution and the instant maximum torque provided by electric motors would reduce travel time.

Devonport Takapuna Youth Board (466) 12:00 - 12:10 Supports the pricing zones, the integrated ticketing and services and supports route numbers. Extension of the north services to the university is endorsed. Cutting down the number of services is supported on the basis that the level of services does not decrease. The use of feeder buses will only be effective if transfer stations are weather proof and services are frequent. Strongly opposes any increases to student fares. Students are high users of public transport with limited capacity to pay.

David Cooper (325) 12:10 - 12:20 Draft RPTP is contrary to local communities connectivity and to "well-connected quality towns, villages, and neighbourhoods" as prescribed in the Auckland Plan. Absence of direct north south coastal linkage would detract from community connectivity. Plan concentrates mainly on connecting to busway, which is not good for local area commuting. Taking a direct north/south coastal route would entail several bus changes, eg Torbay to Mairangi Bay = 2 bus changes. Need for a direct (one bus) route linking Torbay, Browns Bay, Mairangi Bay, Milford, and Takapuna. Very concerned at physical and safety impacts that buses cause on our communities. Envisaged that greater frequency would mean more and smaller buses, with less physical and detrimental impact.

20

Campbells Bay Community Association (281) 12:20 - 12:30 Agree that the success of the Northern Busway confirms that Aucklanders will use quality PT, and that significant changes needed if we are to have a simpler, connected network. Currently both expensive and badly co-ordinated to make a trip from/to Campbells Bay involving a non-central destination. E.g. Campbells Bay to/from Rosedale Park, a very short trip by car, takes 1 - 1.5 hours. Strongly support proposals to shift towards a simpler, more connected network, with expanded frequent services. Neither practical nor desirable to have large buses servicing narrow roads. There is good north south bus transportation, but poor east west access. Need small yet regular feeder mini-buses taking residents to/from Busway and commercial areas throughout the day to augment the proposed network. Busway capacity could be significantly increased with pre-ticketing and multi-exit buses Proposed zone charging is strongly supported. Very short trips, only using part of a feeder service, should be free in order to encourage use of PT for local trips. Unitary Plan recommends reduced parking requirements. If implemented there needs to be complementary provision of local short distance transport.

21

Friday 1 February 2013 (Henderson)

Henderson-Massey Local Board (886) 09:00 - 09:40 (Joint hearing)

Fares for west Auckland should be in Zone Two to provide consistency with North Shore Plans for the Te Atatu bus exchange do not allow for the safe and convenient transfer of passengers from the Te Atatu Peninsula bus stop to buses travelling to Henderson or New Lynn on the other side of the north western motorway. Extensive community consultation is necessary before deciding on the location of Te Atatu ferry stop. Supports the extensive provision of park and ride facilities, with an emphasis on provision outside the major centres. Shuttle buses should be used on the more remote bus routes. Advocates for west Aucklands transport projects to be moved forward as the west will be experiencing significant growth during the period covered by the plan. Supports a dedicated busway down the north western motorway from Westgate to the city. There is a need for a bus route past Trusts Stadium in Central Park Dr, Henderson, especially for large events. Supports the use of the rail corridor as a potential green asset. HOP cards should charge by the distance travelled rather than by arbitrary zones. Endorses protection of the Onehunga to Avondale rail corridor as this could be an important alternative route across Auckland and reduce congestion on both the southern motorway and the south western ring route.

Waitakere Ranges Local Board (899) 09:00 - 09:40 (Joint hearing) Mangere and Otahuhu are key work locations for Waitakere Ranges residents as well as destinations on the train lines such as New Lynn, Avondale, Henderson and the City. The proposed network system should actively support these commuter journeys in reasonable timeframes. Should be a targeted approach to increasing public transport options for school students. Supports the extensive provision of park and ride facilities, with an emphasis on provision outside the major centres. Shuttle buses should be used on the more remote bus routes. Advocates for west Aucklands transport projects to be moved forward as the west will be experiencing significant growth during the period covered by the plan. Supports a dedicated bus way down the north western motorway from Westgate to the city. Fares should be consistent and provide equity of access and affordability across Auckland. Fares for west Auckland should be in Zone Two to provide consistency and equity with North Shore HOP cards should charge by the distance travelled rather than by arbitrary zones. Short trips that cross from one fare zone to another should not incur a full zone fare charge.

Whau Local Board (903) 09:00 - 09:40 (Joint hearing) Many west Auckland residents they work in the industrial and manufacturing areas of Rosebank, Onehunga/Penrose, and the Auckland international airport precinct. The proposed network system should actively support non-city centric commuter journeys.

22

There should there be a targeted approach increasing public transport options for school students for example loop buses from nearest train stations. Travel speeds of public transport need to be much more comparative to private vehicles. The need to take a less direct route due to the proposed network approach will create another perceived (and potentially actual) extension of complete travel time. The western area bus services are scheduled to be implemented in 2015/16. This delay does not seem to capitalise and integrate with the PT development invested in New Lynn. A significant opportunity is being lost in not establishing dedicated bus corridors along the north western motorway between the city centre, past Rosebank Road and onto the emerging Westgate metropolitan centre. A Rail to Rosebank shuttle link for workers is urgently required The proposed fare zones appear not to be equitable and look to disadvantage residents in the west and south. How fares are managed on zone boundaries is also questioned. Need to manage and encourage zone transition that is poly-centric not CBD-centric e.g. consider those who work in the south travelling from Zone 3 west to Zone 3 south. Supports concessions for out of peak use. Opportunity exists for AT to broker a deal with tertiary institutions and major employers around getting free use for students or employees. Opportunity to reduce fares significantly should be investigated. Consideration should be given to tickets having a lifespan of say 2 hours. Opportunities should be locked in around park n ride areas to support their transition as the PT network matures. Avondale Rail station site is an important opportunity for immediate development as a Park and Ride

Puketapapa Local Board (895) 09:40 - 10:00 Network Structure: Support the concept as long as the reliable can be guaranteed. Connections to the frequent network should include/cater for walking and cycling, e.g. lockers or secure storage. Vehicle standards. Strongly recommend looking at electric buses. Farebox recovery. Savings in other areas that are caused by the use of public transport should be taken into account before the fares are put up to recover costs. Concessions and incentives should also include incentives to encourage people who do not normally travel by PT to try it out. Park and Ride facilities. Agree to provision but within limits. We do not want carparks covering Auckland just to enable the use of PT. Land use policies that support the PT network will have to be timed well with perceptible improvements to services. A PT network that is accessible and safe should include security on routes at night. Areas of high deprivation and transport disadvantage may have a greater need for public transport options. Board supports proposal to work with agencies to promote understanding of the Smartcard and its associated benefits for low income and beneficiary households. Procurement: Encourage the use of local providers and local businesses vs. companies where profits are sent overseas. Annual fare review and adjustment process does not always have to result in a fare increase. Improved service can also increase the numbers of users which means fares can be reduces without negatively impacting farebox recovery. Board has outlined its views on alternate funding mechanisms for public transport.

23

Rodney Local Board (896) 10:00 - 10:20 Supports overall concept and approach of the draft Plan. Concern that the plan will take a significant amount of time to implement. Generally supportive of the change to the fare structure. Request that a single fare structure is investigated in the future e.g. one set fee for a journey from Orewa to Henderson or Orewa to Papakura. Should be consistency regarding the gold card policy e.g. the Kawau Island ferry service should be considered as part of the Auckland PT network and eligible for gold card use. Ferries should be incorporated in the network as there is currently a difference in terms of fares and these should be more uniform. Supports a Warkworth to Silverdale / Albany bus service.

Gay Richards (491) 10:50 - 11:00 I support with reservations the general direction of the proposed plan. Support the concept of introducing high frequency routes; however these will only be truly effective on the dedicated transport networks (rail and Northern bus way). On other routes they will be subject to traffic congestion and delays. A transport route, particularly for time constrained commuters is only as good as the least frequent connection. For users on the North Shore, particularly those in the southern suburbs of Northcote, Birkenhead, Takapuna, Milford and Bayswater, the proposed network will not deliver a significantly improved service, as some routes appear to be poorly designed or fail to link to key destinations. The Northern Busway does not serve this population well. Concession fares for children, the disabled and elderly are essential to ensure equitable access Supergold card travel should continue to be free after 9am for the rest of the day. Requiring travel to be completed by 3pm is unrealistic due to the regions wide geographic spread. Creating and maintaining accessible vehicles and transport interchanges and other infrastructure is essential. This should include good lighting at interchanges, audible and visible signage at interchanges and onboard all services. Organisations and service users with an understanding of specific disabilities must be consulted at all stages of planning and implementation. Need a direct high frequency service from Takapuna to the Auckland CBD with a stop close to Britomart, as Takapuna is designated a metropolitan growth area. Commuters will be unwilling to make bus to bus connections where there is little guarantee of timely connections; and people with disabilities are best served by routes with fewer connections and where their service is reliable in terms of time and access. Oppose the proposed Fares and Ticketing plan: The ferry services must be included in the fare zone plan. Oppose the concept of dividing the Auckland region into fare zones largely based on the old territorial boundaries. A better, and fairer zoning system could be developed based on distance from the centre (based approximately at Britomart)

Waiheke & Gulf Islands Grey Power Association Inc (541) 11:00 - 11:10 Very concerned that NZTA have proposed that the Gold Card concession during the afternoon peak period be discontinued. Limiting that travel to between the hours of 9.00 am and 3.00 pm is very restrictive, particularly for residents of Waiheke Island.

24

Strongly oppose any change to the hours of operation of the existing Gold Card concession system.

Allen Davies (542) 11:10 - 11:20 Support the general intent of the plan. Particularly support a 15 minute bus service from the Massey area across the North Western Motorway to Downtown Auckland. Support the introduction of the fare zones but concerned that the North Shore area past Upper Harbour and Constellation Drives and beyond to Orewa etc are greatly advantaged over areas such as Kumeu etc.

North Harbour Business Association (880) 11:30 - 11:40 Support in principal the shift towards a simpler, more connected network, with expanded frequent services. Reiterate concerns regarding the links from Constellation Drive and Albany Busway Park and Rides into the North Harbour Business Improvement District (BID) as being inadequate currently. Improved frequency of service to the main Public Transport (Bus) hubs will only result in changed commuter behaviour if the connecting services reflect the needs of business commuters. A 30 minute service will not engage sufficient volume to make a significant impact. Support the proposed Fares and Ticketing Policy to streamline the commuter experience and to increase the speed at boarding. However, support is conditional on appropriate and timely real time information and public transport facilities being made available throughout the BID area as well as main PT Hub centres. Park and Ride facilities are not keeping up with demand. No investment is earmarked for an extended Constellation Busway until 2015/16 at the earliest. The links between Constellation Busway and North Harbour BID are restricted by the lack of a footpath.

New Zealand Bus Limited (536) 11:40 - 12:00 Supports the fundamental changes that AT is looking to make and looks forward to working together to implement plans. Network Plan: commend the approach to improvement prior to the CRL implementation and suggest buses could be trialled on this loop in the interim. Having appropriate infrastructure will be key to ensuring that changes are successful. Legislative environment: we believe this plan could go further to address the requirements of RPTPs as detailed in the LTMA Bill, NZTA PTOM guidance and Requirements for Urban Buses (RUB). Proposed service categories could be amended to include: The frequent service network will deliver at least a 15 minute service operating all day 7 days a week Need clarity on differences between the funded target 2022 and the Auckland Plan target 2022 (103m v 140m). The funded passenger target (103m) represents only a 3.6% p.a, which appears low given the substantial changes mooted in the Network Plan.

25

Interested to understand how passenger movements will be measured given the increase in passengers that will be making transfers. Concern at timeframes described for infrastructure development to support the Network Plan. NZ Bus would like to see a detailed construction and funding plan. Disappointing that integrated fares planned for 2015, after all network changes are implemented. Would like to see a stronger link between the new Network Plan, fare structures and parking strategies. There is no comment on the future of B-lines Should include policies on how units will be established and reviewed, contracting procedures that will be used and how AT will implement like for like units and risk and reward models. Process for negotiating contracts and variations with incumbents does not allow for a mediation stage should there be disagreement on PTOM unit structures. Suggest that 8.4 (d) be amended to include such a stage. Section 8.4 (h) NZ Bus questions why further information on service inputs and cost efficiency is needed, and recommends these elements are removed. Section 3.6 NZ Bus is concerned at the lack of detail in monthly reporting requirement 3.4 (a) should be altered to read Ensure that all contracted bus services in Auckland contracts comply with the NZTA Requirements for Urban Buses and any approved additional quality standards that Auckland Transport has put in place Prefer a more aggressive approach to increasing the premium paid by cash users. Would like to see a 20% differential introduced immediately and a plan to increase this over time. Charging operators of contracted services for providing customer information and access charges is inefficient. Supportive of the approach to adjust services to meet demand. and seeks further detail on the proposed 85% of total capacity calculation. Driver and Staff training. We support this measure, on the proviso that operators continue to take the lead in this area; caution AT to be cognisant of collective agreements

Matt Lowrie (405) 12:00 - 12:10 Support the proposed changes to network structure as it will enable AT to deliver a more legible and useful network. New proposed network will have a large positive impact on patronage and farebox recovery. As the new network will require more transferring, important that AT put a lot more effort into improving transfers by making them easier for people. Important for the plan to emphasise that proposed network is using the same amount of resources as are used now, just more efficiently. Support moving to a zone based system, however more work needs to be done on the proposed zones, in particular the North Shore and South Auckland should perhaps have some changes made to ensure fairness across the region. Also consider larger cross over zones.

Lisa Middleton (375) 12:10 - 12:20 Strongly support the network system proposal as a whole. Critical to get this working effectively before projects such as the rail loop get progressed. Hop card is important for timely travel/service

26

Dont agree with proposed service categories, in particular only running being 7-7pm. The problem with the current network is the frequency of buses outside working hours. Concerned no interchange being proposed in West Harbour or Hobsonville. Major residential development is currently under construction. Strongly oppose indicative fare zone boundaries. 3 stage fare to the CBD from West and South Auckland, when the North Shore, all the way to Long Bay, is 2. This unfairly benefits public transport users on the North Shore. However, integrated ticketing is an absolute must. Personal experience has shown that there is no clear method of AT taking customer feedback or 'complaints'. Public Transport users when they call to make 'complaints' are not trying to be difficult, they are trying to make the service better for users just like them. Branding of MAXX is confusing and misleading. Branding of AT should cover everything from ticketing to route information and complaints. If real time information is to be provided to users, it should also be avaliable to MAXX call centre staff. Policy 6.8: should be one phone number/email that manages and takes ownership of customer feedback.

27

Monday 4 February 2013 (Auckland Central)

Auckland Disability Law Inc. (387) 09:00 - 09:10 Disabled people have some concerns, including the accessibility of connecting buses and stations. Provide sufficient staff at interchanges to ensure that passengers are safe and can find their connection. Availability of Total Mobility Taxis at interchanges. Signage and real-time information will need to be provided clearly and in a range of formats to enable all passengers to access interchanges safely. Additional consideration should be given to the full accessible journey at all transport interchanges. Disabled people are amongst the most economically disadvantaged people in New Zealand. Any moves that make public transport less affordable for this group will prevent disabled people from being involved in the community. Any increase in fares would make it more difficult to access public transport. Passengers using the total mobility scheme should not be issued with tickets that say "child fare". This is humiliating for passengers. Propose an additional measure of percentage of households within 200 metres of a PT stop providing a service at least once every 30 minutes from 6am to 9pm 7 days a week. That percentage should rise to 90% by 2022. Engagement needed with disabled people on design of interchange centres. Wherever electronic information is provided in print, should also be provided simultaneously by way of audio announcements. Propose that a policy be established for setting the maximum subsidy for total mobility trips. Ensure an increase in the number of buses that will take people in wheelchairs Training for all staff dealing with passengers is essential to ensure that they respond to the needs of disabled passengers appropriately. It is essential the machines for topping up HOP cards are made fully accessible to disabled people, and that people are given the ability to top up online.

Steve Peake (47) 09:10 - 09:20 A "park and ride" / "hub" strategy, centred in commercial areas will have the opposite effect to your stated target. While it causes a short term increase in the Rapid Transport Link usage numbers it also cements the transport user's dependence on needing a car. You need to terminate these Rapid Transport Link services in residential areas, not the commercial areas as currently proposed. Need to address "non-peak" service provision to reduce the amount of drink-driving. You continue to neglect water based transport. North zone should be split into two parts to equalise with the treatment of those going west. There are a number of flaws with the proposed map. Absence of coordination with the developments around Westgate, West Harbour and Hobsonville.

28

Patrick Baron (349) 09:20 - 09:30 The plan calls for the 945/945X routes to be abolished in favour of a single service with a Mon-Fri rush-hour frequency of 15 minutes with interchange connection at Akoranga for city and Takapuna bound passengers. 945 and 945X services are well patronised by commuters in the mornings. The proposed consolidated service does not enhance the existing services provided to city-bound commuters and instead decreases the level of service. The proposed integrated hop card is a major step forward for passengers who may need to use different transport suppliers The RPTP needs to study the impact of consolidating services upon the frequency and quality of service provided to affected passengers.

Fullers Group Limited; and 360 Discovery Limited (581) 09:30 - 09:50 No direct mention of the role of private capital, its value or its significance to the PT system. This should be remedied with the inclusion of suitably worded statements on importance of joint investment in Aucklands PT network in Exec Summary, Ch 2 and Ch 5; and appropriate policies and actions added as section 6.11, Private capital funding. Exempt services: some confusion in the RPTP how some of these services are to be classified and treated. How can the RPTP not include an exempt service as required by section 119 (c) (ii) when they are clearly part of the actual PT network and should for sound reasons be shown as such the RPTP? Simple solution is for the RPTP to include a statement that says: AT does not propose to provide those services listed as exempt services. For the sake of clarity exempt services should be clearly defined in line with the intent of the LTMA Bill; and delete the Note to Policy 8.3. Waiheke island bus services: Fullers is encouraging at total review of PT bus services for the island community in line with the RPTP Policies; keen to participate in this partnership process. No policies in the RPTP that ensure that the needs of the PT sector are appropriately balanced against the needs of the tourist industry sector. This is of particular importance because the tourism business of Aucklands ferry providers has an almost total reliance on access to AT owned PT infrastructure i.e. wharves. Support the clear vision of Auckland Council and AT for public transport in Auckland Support the introduction of integrated fares however, must retain the ability to accommodate non-standard fares or operator specific products. Add new policy and action on this. Policy 8.7 add a new action on certainty of access to infrastructure for exempt services Add a new Policy 4.11 Provide for special fares in specific instances or for a set time as a marketing tool to encourage increased use, to introduce a new service or to facilitate integration or tourism. We believe that Policy 8.7 c is unworkable in practice: The orderly implementation of a variation to or a new exempt service is a matter for the operator to organise: either remove or amend. Oppose the suggestion that AT may require quality standards that are additional to NZTAs Requirements for Urban Buses (RUB). Policy 8.4 goes well beyond the information requirements agreed by PTOM parties. Propose amendment to action h.

29

Chris Sutton, Panmure Business Association (295) 09:50 - 10:00 No written comments provided

Auckland University of Technology (587) 10:00 - 10:10 AUT supports a more integrated public transport system and the need to create more interchanges. AT should note that AUT is currently developing its Manukau Campus at 640 Great South Road. It is critical that Aucklands PT system ensures adequate, frequent provision of services between the Manukau interchange and the Manukau Campus. Further developments in the proposed frequent service network (for 2022) seem to bypass the Manukau Campus, creating no greater capacity to service a growing student body. A single south zone will significantly reduce PT costs for students travelling to and from Manukau Campus from within South Auckland. Services from the North Shore and western isthmus will terminate within the Learning Quarter. This will improve convenience and accessibility for AUTs staff and students, although considerably more attention needed to ensure safe pedestrian routes across Wellesley St East. The proposed zoning structure should result in cheaper fares for students to travel to the Campus from across the majority of the former North Shore City, even if fares rise. Note the growing importance of AUTs Millennium Campus (Antares Place, Mairangi Bay) and the potential for increased numbers of students at this Campus over the coming decade.

Grey Power Auckland Zone (574) 10:10 - 10:20 Extremely disturbing to note that the Draft Plan is considering the removal of the extended concession for travel beyond 3.00 pm. Ask that Auckland Transport request a policy directive on the removal of the concession option from Mayor Len Brown.

Waikato District Council (570) 10:20 - 10:40 There are currently existing bus services and a proposed Tuakau to Pukekohe rail service that Council would like to see remaining within the Auckland RPTP. WDC and Waikato Regional Council (WRC) have consequently made allocations to upgrade the Tuakau rail platform and allow for a rail service to commence. Recommends that AT continue to provide consideration for this proposal and works with WRC and WDC towards achieving such a service. Bus services from Pukekohe to Port Waikato, and Tuakau to Pukekohe: no reference to these services in Appendix 1.A. Acknowledged that provision of funding for a portion of these services should now be provided by WRC, however integration with the Auckland regional services should be acknowledged and provided for by AT. Existing by-weekly contracted service between Hamilton and Pukekohe is not shown. Requests that AT continues to make provision for these services as currently provided. Whilst Pokeno and Tuakau are now in the Waikato District, there is still strong community connectedness between these communities, and Pukekohe and beyond to Auckland.

30

New Zealand Automobile Association Inc (544) 11:00 - 11:20 Congratulate AT for all the work that has gone into the draft regional public transport plan, and pleased to advise our in-principle support for it. Concerned by the indicative fare zone boundaries in the draft plan. The inequity of the proposed boundaries across the region is not acceptable, and we request that AT review the boundaries before the final plan is confirmed. Note the absence of any comprehensive ferry network planning in the document for both services and required infrastructure. Urge Auckland Transport to include this in the plan as a matter of priority.

Grey Power Howick / Pakuranga Association Inc (504) 11:20 - 11:30 Greatly appreciative of Auckland Councils current policy of providing an extension to the core SuperGold card public transport travel concession to allow travel after 3.00pm. Benefits to the older community have been immense. To remove the concession on the grounds it is nationally inconsistent and unaffordable is just not acceptable and will be strongly opposed by Grey Power at all political levels. Has not seen figures published of the actual cost of off peak travel for SuperGold The basic community activities and services and the factors listed under those identified as likely to be transport disadvantaged above would apply to a lot of elderly Auckland citizens. Consequently, access to an efficient public transport system, including free off-peak travel will become essential. SuperGold scheme is a valued and much needed service for people over 65 who may not be able to drive, who are on low incomes and who need to get from A to B to get food, visit relatives in hospital, keep hospital appointments and play a role in their communities. Access to free travel beyond 3.00pm would allow this. The impact on businesses and cafes in communities like Waiheke Island, Pine Harbour and Orewa would certainly be felt if senior citizens were unable to enjoy a day out A proposed zonal fare system with South zone will be 3-stage, whereas the North zone will be 2-stage. Concerned that the costs higher from the South zone, when the distances similar. Other means of SuperGold HOP card registration needed for people without computers Need explicit publicity awareness campaign to be undertaken promptly so SuperGold card holders will know they have to purchase a free ticket from a machine before boarding rather than buying it on board. This has not been publicised to date.

Ellerslie Residents' Association (278) 11:30 - 11:40 The plan needs to take into account the needs of a suburb like Ellerslie which has been earmarked as a town centre and intermediate interchange. While Ellerslie is well serviced in a linear fashion along the isthmus, services across the isthmus from say Royal Oak and Oranga through Ellerslie to Meadowbank/St Johns and on to St Heliers are virtually non-existent. Even though Ellerslie is an intermediate interchange no allowance has been made for a park and ride facility. Unclear if the provision of bus transport will reduce road congestion along the EllersliePanmure Highway. A central isthmus rail loop linking Penrose and Sylvia Park and the Orakei line and the Parnell Station would decentralise public transport and allow for a more effective and quick transport around the isthmus.

31

Civic Trust Auckland (553) 11:40 - 12:00 Supports the general direction of the proposed PT Network and in particular the advances in rail electrification and integrated ticketing. Caution against the transport infrastructure having a negative impact on Aucklands built and natural environment, particularly the effect on historic heritage and viewshafts. Strongly support policies 1.2 and 2.2 and accompanying actions All-day service would ideally mean 24-hour service for at least the major routes. Suggest major routes have an hourly service throughout Friday and Saturday nights Customers should not have to change to a different service more than once especially in the central isthmus. Propose adoption of one region-wide free public transport day per month Supports the proposed fares and ticketing policy. Do not support the intention to increase of public transport fares in the near future. Suggest that consideration be given to raising car parking fees. There should always be available on public transport a cash option for payment of fares. Supports expanded ferry transport as a part of the public transport network. Would like to see provision of more bus lanes. Need more clarity on the rules regarding use of bus lanes by all other road users. Low noise emission an important aspect of bus quality. Introduction of smaller buses to the fleet would be more cost efficient and sustainable Support the implementation of the CRL. This route must not compromise the built heritage in the area. Would like to see a higher priority to the airport rail loop. Support the establishment of a commuter line between Auckland and Hamilton All public transport journeys out of necessity include a walking component and so the needs of pedestrians are important. Ideally all public transport services would have provision to carry bicycles. Would like to see a tram network reintroduced, particularly extension of the tramline from the Wynyard Quarter to St Heliers and the reintroduction of trams following the historic routes. It does not seem appropriate to charge for Park and Ride, as people should be encouraged to use these facilitates in order to use public transport. Supports new and extended park and ride facilities but placement must take into account the effect on the surrounding environment and community. A future public transport option for discussion is Sky-Waka an overhead transport system running up the middle of and above the motorway. Auckland Transport call centre should provide a 24-hour service to enable customers to plan their journeys.

John Alan Taylor (287) 12:00 - 12:10 Do Auckland Transport operate or own the buses used throughout the region?; What are the costs to date and approx costs to complete system - rail & bus? Why was progress not made with Britomart to Auckland Airport line at the same time as the new Mangere Bridge was built? Any work on the on rail system is progress. The rate of progress can only be described as slow. No weekend trains - loss of income!!

32

Auckland Regional Public Health Service (522) 12:10 - 12:20 Support the integrated approach proposed. Believe that it will improve PT and positively impact on health outcomes by encouraging use. Although we support the change to a network approach we do have a number of concerns. Would welcome information as to what analysis performed between the status quo and the proposed approach. The needs of the transport disadvantaged should be taken into account in designing such interchanges. This should cover the physical environment e.g. how accessible it is for people with disabilities, the elderly and those with childrens strollers, and also the spatial layout of the interchange in operation e.g. where particular routes drop off and pick up passengers. Note the absence of inner harbour ferry services from the network. Surprised that current investment isnt being optimised by the provision of more ferry services. Unable to find any information on the target time to make a connection between differing routes and services. Suggest wait at an interchange should not be more than 15 minutes, and preferable to have a lower target e.g. 5 minutes. From health sector perspective, many of our patients (and their relatives/carers) are transport disadvantaged. Want to see excellent PT access to secondary services (hospitals and outpatient and elective service centres). It would be disappointing if cross zone travel incurred a fare premium (over and above a similar length journey within a zone). Do not understand why AT is proposing such a high target farebox recovery ratio of 75-80% for ferry services Over time we expect the model of health services in the Auckland region to change with a greater proportion of health services provided closer to a patients home. We hope that access to such future health facilities will be considered in PT planning. Needs of cyclists and pedestrians should be one of the paramount factors. PT networks need to be planned and built together with active transport networks. Plan is silent on provision of cycle storage at interchanges or carriage of cycles or childrens strollers on public transport services. There is no overarching standard of conduct policy Deprived households have lower access to PT. Concerned that merely to consider such need does not go far enough. Recommend that the wording of policy 7.6 is strengthened Consider whether requirements to be a good employer can be incorporated into PTOM to assist with the continuity of high quality service. Recommend measure for PT accessibility in areas of high socio-economic deprivation incorporated into action 10.b. Support the majority of the Transport Disadvantaged Assessment and believe that AT has successfully identified those groups who are transport disadvantaged. Note that Children (particularly those under 5) are heavy consumers of health services and access for children is as important as access for people with disabilities and the elderly. Access to education is important for beneficiaries and people with low income. Important that the transport disadvantaged have access to secondary health services

33

Jodi Johnston (382) 12:20 - 12:30 Plan is a step in the right direction. However, does not go far enough. Will reward a minority who are proximate to long standing PT corridors whilst punishing the majority with either a substandard service or lengthy walks. Plan acknowledges that service speed is important but does not consider the role of train station consolidation, nor peak express services Proposed fare zones are far too broad. Suggest a total of 8 zones, which would ensure equity in fare charges and remove potential for people to drive across fare boundaries to obtain a lower fare. Plan proposes to slash capacity on some very popular services during peak. The goal of getting as many households as practicable within 500 metres of the frequent service network should surpass all other considerations. Why is it only possible to achieve 103 million public transport trips by 2022? Should include a mode share target for peak trips in the entire Auckland region. Providing convenient connections is particularly important to the network structure. Aim must be to provide connections that are not only convenient, but also maximise passenger comfort; sufficient shelter; Minimal distance between services. Policy 2.4 is much needed. Delayed provision of public transport services has often meant that it has taken considerable effort to try and coax people to public transport. Policy 2.7 could be used in future periods as the basis for a slash and burn policy, and could mean that services decrease below the minimum standards. What would result in faster journey times is station consolidation. The plan suggests the closure of only two low used stations, Westfield and Te Mahia. Suggest the inclusion of Remuera, and consider merging Morningside and Baldwin Avenue. Remove the price barrier for access to the HOP card and replacement with a $10 credit, paid for on purchase, that can be utilised once the card is registered. SuperGold Card concessions should be reviewed. The provision of free afternoon peak services has significant cost. More funds could be realised if every dollar was spent as efficiently as possible. Question technical feasibility of the proposed rail timetable. Plan suggests 22 trains per hour during peak prior to CBD Loop. I understand that, the limit is 20 trains per hour. One of the critical things that is needed for the interchange proposal to work is capacity, Suggest minimise the use of bus to rail interchanges during peak until the construction of the CBD Loop.

Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind (546) 12:30 - 12:50 To provide convenient connections between services, Total Mobility options need to be included. For example a taxi drop-off zone. Fully support requirements to conform to the NZTAs Requirements for Urban Buses. Infrastructure should be well designed to enable independent and safe use for everyone. RNZFB recommends the development of new guidelines for bus stops, transport interchanges and all infrastructure to ensure they are accessible for our members. Customer interface: important to our members that branding on fleets and for routes is consistent so that it is easily recognisable. Particularly important that any types of information systems, particularly at key transport interchanges, include audio announcements rather than just relying on visual information. Welcomes driver and support staff training and awareness, however, note this should be agency provided and endorsed to ensure consistency in teaching and assessment.

34

Total Mobility: urge that this scheme is made a funding priority as it is a vital transport option for people with disabilities Keen to see a commitment from AT to ensure that as many disabled people as possible are able to use an accessible mainstream transport system. Recommends that all tenders include minimal requirements in terms of accessibility, e.g. accessible services or vehicles.

Waikato Regional Council (576) 12:30 - 12:50 Supports the general direction in the draft plan, and in particular, the focus around improving the service network, implementing integrated fares ticketing system, and reviewing the procurement system to align with PTOM. Waikato District Council currently provides a portion of local share funding for bus services from Pukekohe to Port Waikato, and Tuakau to Pukekohe. However, these services have not been reflected in Appendix 1.A. Also an existing bi-weekly Hamilton to Pukekohe service which is not shown. Request that these services be recognised as part of future network in the RPTP, and any changes undertaken in consultation with Waikato councils. Request continued provision for Tuakau to Pukekohe bus services until a viable substitute such as a passenger rail is introduced. Appreciates previous support from AT on Rail Working Party for the Auckland to Hamilton commuter rail service. Working Party report noted that the existing rail service could be extended from Pukekohe to Tuakau, as a first stage. This has been supported by Waikato Regional Council and Waikato District Council, and funding for upgrade of Tuakau rail platform included in Waikato District councils Long Term Plan 2012-15. Understands that decisions subject to further investigations, and decision on electrification to Pukekohe. Request that ATcontinues to consider this proposal in future planning.

Hamada Eleleimy (64) 13:50 - 14:00 No written comments provided

Keith Sharp, Panmure Community Action Group (424) 14:00 - 14:10 While the principle of an integrated public network plan is good, the fact that the plan is dependent on some passengers making connections should not be under-estimated. In Panmure, potential major impact from proposed changes to our long-standing bus services as a combined result of this plan and proposed AMETI busway on Lagoon Drive. Proposals to shift the focus of Panmure's bus services and stops away from the Queen's Road shopping centre towards Lagoon Drive and new Panmure Station, away from where the majority of Panmure's bus passengers have been catching buses for decades. While it may suit the neat symmetry of the Frequent Service Network, would certainly not suit the people who are supposed to make use of the service. Seriously detrimental effect on bus users in Panmure but also Queens Rd businesses. Dangerous to assume that overall plan can be locked into place before discussing details of individual routes Do not make the mistake of ignoring the potential for alienating existing bus passengers.

35

Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd (468) 14:10 - 14:20 Overall supportive of the intentions of the plan; particularly the emphasis on simplifying the existing system which is overcomplicated and confusing. Good to see staged roll out pre (2016) and post (2022) the CRL. However, between 2016 and 2022 there will only be a small number of additional Frequent Network routes. Should be more ambitious with future 2022 Frequent Network projections. Figure 5-1 shows the proposed service categories. We support this approach. However, further explanation needed of how proposed future network in Appendix 1A supports this. Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-5: specific queries: o No frequent services feeding the West Harbour, Birkenhead, Bayswater, Half Moon Bay or Beach Haven Ferry services. o Northern Busway not served by sufficient Frequent Network feeder routes particularly from the west. o Cross-town (west-east) service for the southern North Shore would be beneficial. o Some concerns re splitting up the Frequent Network route from Manukau Town Centre, once past Botany Town Centre, into two lesser frequency services to Howick and Highland Park. o Significant detour of the Lake Road route. Opportunity to forge a stronger connection between the RPTP and the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) Guidelines. Will be one of the key mechanisms for achieving Policy 1.4. No mention of the Corridor Management Plan (CMP) process in RPTP. To achieve Objective 3 (& also Objectives 1 and 2), it will be vital to engage with CMP process. Proposed zone based fare system would not be equitable on all users. Design of the system should be reconsidered. Zone differentiation needs to be refined. HOP card stored value discount target should be much more ambitious. Understand option to remove Super Gold concession in evening peak period as has been done overseas. Tertiary students are significant users and concessions should be retained . Scope under Objective 5 to highlight initiatives within AT (e.g. CMP projects). Policy 5.4: To provide the type of network outlined in the RPTP bus priority measures will be fundamental and should not just be limited to key corridors as stated. Further, should encourage innovative thinking and the opportunity to trial different measures. Figure A 6-1. Limited space at the majority of these stations and we believe the focus should be to first provide well designed interchanges; park and ride facilities should be a secondary consideration. Policy 5.6. makes reference to transfers and integration but does not provide specific details. Bicycle facilities on PT vehicles should be given consideration. Objective 8. A key aspect will be the actual enforcement of compliance requirements.

Amanda Kinzett, Onehunga Business Association (435) 14:20 - 14:30 No inclusion or budget to look into a ferry service for the Manukau Harbour, which would service a large range of communities and open this area of Auckland. Still seems to be a lack of cross (east to west) linkages. A lot of industrial areas do not have strong transport linkages. Lack of forward thought to the economic impact PT can have to employment areas, i.e. Church-Neilson business precinct. To be successful, business precincts are required to be connected by high quality transport networks.

36

Auckland needs development of PT hubs, and particularly rail links, that integrate with a range of alternative transport modes such buses, cycling and walking

MRCagney (469) 14:30 - 14:40 Introduction is underwhelming. Material in sections 1 and 2 could be combined. Strategic Context: Section titled growth in travel demand focuses too heavily on PT as a response to challenges in expanding the road network; underplays socio-economic and demographic factors. Factors include improved parking policies, increasingly high and volatile fuel prices, an ageing population, reduced rates of driver licensing and vehicle ownership amongst young people, and new technologies. Suggest the draft RPTP acknowledges that ATs ability to achieve targets is contingent not just on available funding but also a range of other policies, such as Unitary Plan. Section 3.1 overstates the degree to which the Northern Busway operates on dedicated rights-of- way. Suggest that section 4 is combined with section 5 and vision is modified slightly as follows: An integrated, efficient and effective public transport network that offers caters for a wider range of trips and is the mode of choice for an increasing number of Aucklanders. Policy 5.1 should mention the need for level of service indicators that monitor speed/reliability on frequent bus routes. Policy 8.1 should express preference for PTOM contracts on a gross cost basis. By assigning the fare revenue risk to council, operators are able to focus on minimising costs. Submission also includes other detailed wording suggestions for policies & actions Applaud decision to move to single integrated fare structure. However the proposed fare zone structure has some short comings and creates inequities North Shore is only two zones to the CBD, while equivalent distances to the west and south are three or four zones away. A further complication is the opposite inequity that relatively short trips from the southern North Shore to the isthmus must pass through three zones. South Auckland under one zone creates a very large area. This limited 'fidelity' of zones is likely to result in the base single zone fare being quite highly priced. Suggest modifications: North Shore zone should be split into two. The lower half should be appended to the isthmus zone, to form a new inner zone'; and the upper half appended to the West Auckland zone, to create a single Northwest zone. The southern Zone should be split into two zones. Consideration should be given to including ferries in the zonal structure particularly the Devonport ferry which we consider an intergral part of the integrated grid of frequent services. Further consideration needs to be given to the nature and location of zone overlaps at zone boundaries. These should cover every possible overlap area and work in both directions, not just the peak radial direction.

New Zealand Institute of Architects (418) 14:50 - 15:10 Welcomes and supports the main thrust of the draft Plan Believe that the Auckland Plan target of 57 boardings by 2022 is inadequate, and should be increased to 100 boardings. The location and design of places where people will transfer from one route to another is allimportant. At present, likely locations involve long walks between stops. Ideally connecting

37

buses should stop alongside the rail platform, under cover. Similarly, bus stops at transfer points should be adjacent at intersections. Further attention to the issue of timed connections is required. Fare options for journeys involving a transfer are inadequately addressed in the Plan. Recommend consideration of an alternative proposal to charge all HOP card fares at a rate per km between the start and finish points of a journey. Cash fares would still need to be zone-based, but should be significantly higher than HOP card fare to discourage their use, because of adverse affect on boarding times. Comprehensive strategy for cycling should be developed as an integral overlay to the PT Plan, and facility to take bikes onto buses should be implemented. Concerned about the urban environment being degraded by concentration of buses in the centre of Auckland. Recommend the location of new bus interchange points close to the proposed Karangahape and Newton Rail Stations, ready for a proper system of transfers once the CRL is constructed. Consider looping bus routes around city centre and reducing the number of through routes. Plan should be supported by new parking requirements that recognise the amount of carparking on private land should be left to the market to decide to a much greater extent. Would like to see the Plan implemented more swiftly than suggested. Concern about the image of existing buses, and the slow growth in bus lanes.

The Campaign for Better Transport (514) 15:10 - 15:20 Supports the Plan, especially the focus on developing and integrated public transport network. Also believes that the new PTOM regime should offer better value from passenger transport operators. Supports the establishment of a public transport network as described in the Plan. With the move to fewer but more frequent bus routes, it will be crucial to offer passengers the ability to easily transfer between services, without facing a financial penalty for doing so. Bus interchange points need to be carefully considered. Transfers between services need to be comfortable and achievable in all weather. Need dedicated bus interchanges to support this, and assume that this has been budgeted for. CBT is interested to know the detailed plans for future bus routes and interchanges Supports the proposal for a zone based fare system. The boundaries of any zone system will always be arbitrary; however there are anomalies with the indicative boundaries in figure 6-1: o Albany is within 2 zones of the CBD. Suggest that for reasons of fairness, a fare zone boundary be introduced between Takapuna and Constellation Drive. o Manurewa is well outside the 20Km radius. For reasons of fairness suggest a fare zone boundary along a line between Manukau and Auckland Airport. Effect of boundaries could be offset by more finely graduated pricing for travel across two zones. In addition floating fare zone boundaries can also help smooth out anomalies. Supports higher cash fare prices to encourage the use of AT Hop The current inner city fare does not appear to be part of the proposed fare zone boundaries. Seek clarification on whether the inner city fare will continue. Would like more information about the amount of travel made by superannuitants during the peak time. It may be that the numbers are not significant Urges AT to take an overall view of fare box revenue across the entire public transport network, during peak and off-peak times. Compared to overseas cities, public transport fares are relatively high in Auckland. Offering attractive off-peak group pricing can improve fare box recovery ratio and encourages more people to try PT.

38

AT needs to introduce attractive group off-peak pricing before the introduction of electric rolling stock. As a comparison, Sydney offers the Family Funday Sunday where, for $2.50 per person, family can enjoy unlimited travel. An alternative is allowing children to travel free with an AT Hop card holder on weekends.

39

Thursday 7 February 2013 (Manukau)

Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board (889) 09:00 - 09:20 AT should better reflect in the document how access to PT for high deprivation communities it identifies as being transport disadvantaged is supported within Mngere-thuhu, OtaraPapatoetoe and Manurewa. Does not support any changes to the SuperGold Card entitlements. Does not support proposed zone charging system. This would penalise our community and other communities living in close proximity to the zone boundaries. The proposed zones place additional disadvantage on communities living in the southern area. This move is in contradiction to the intent of The Southern Initiative. A distance or concentric zone charge based from the travel start point would provide a more equitable fare system. Farebox Recovery Rate (FRR) of 50% within 3 years may have a detrimental impact on our community. Does not support the proposed staging because it does not prioritise a key connection from Favona Road to the Otahuhu Area. Need to incorporate principles of universal design and inclusion into practice at an early stage. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessments and recommendations must be taken into account when designing and developing transport hubs and park and ride facilities. This is critical for southern areas where crime and safety are a major concern for our communities. Locations that require priority attention are: Mngere Town Centre, Otahuhu Train Station and Mngere Bridge. Include in PTOM contract requirements for the inclusion of opportunities for youth employment and/or training opportunities. Propose a new park and ride facility be investigated for the Otahuhu Train Station. Electrification to Pukekohe is not as critical to implement in the next 10 years as the southern rail connection to Manukau.

Franklin Local Board (885) 09:20 - 09:40 Supports the general direction of the draft RPTP, providing an integrated and simplified network structure, with fewer direct routes and more frequency than the current system. However the draft RPTP is focused on the frequent service network, and does not adequately address connector or local services. As the frequent service network does not extend to Pukekohe, a clear indication of how connector and local services will serve Franklin is needed. The proposal is inconsistent with the Auckland Plans identification of Pukekohe as a large satellite town. No proposal in the draft plan for the deployment of electric trains to Pukekohe. The PT network needs to support the growth outlined in the Auckland Plan which requires 55,000 extra houses in the south. A connection with the Waikato District is not included in the draft plan. Requests an investigation into a southern link from Manukau Station to Pukekohe. Supports the new fares and ticketing policy. Policy for a 50% farebox recovery ratio is supported, but should be balanced with affordability. Achieve where possible through growing patronage and managing costs rather

40

than fare increases. More detail required on the proposed fare charges within zones to assess the Supports the removal of concessions for GoldCard holders but opposes the removal of concessions for tertiary students. The Pukekohe Railway Station upgrade and the Park and Ride interchange and Drury Railway Station and Park and Ride urgently needed to support growth and ease congestion. Targeted services appear to be urban focussed; no provision for the rural/urban interface such as Beachlands and Maraetai. Requests bus services that directly link outlying communities with rail in Pukekohe or Papakura. Engagement prior to proposed route changes has been poor to date and needs to occur at an earlier stage. A local route to Waiuku is needed.

Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board (893) 09:40 - 10:00 Generally supports the vision and outcomes as stated in the draft RPTP. Supports the proposed service network structure. The RPTP needs to make clear that low socio-economic communities in South Auckland, such as Mangere-Otahuhu,Otara-Papatoetoe and Manurewa are all transport disadvantaged. The plan should name these areas. Plan should state how, specifically, it will support access to public transport by transport disadvantaged communities; and how low income earners can be supported or subsidised to better support affordable public transport access.

Manurewa Local Board (891) 10:00 - 10:20 Network Structure. It is unclear whether customer needs will be met in an equitable way across the region. In some areas customers will have more complex journeys than at present, as there will be a need to transfer between services. For Manurewa, direct linkages with economic hubs like the Airport and Wiri industrial area are missing. A fast east-west connection is not included. Introduction of integrated tickets and fares is generally supported. However the HOP technology may act to exclude sectors of the population. Those preferring cash transactions will in effect be penalised. This would truly affect the poorer communities in South Auckland. AT should continue to use High Street retailers within local areas to sell passes and HOP Cards. Generally support expansion of the Park and Ride facility in Manurewa. However concerns about safety and security will need to be addressed. Farebox recovery policy. Board would be concerned if, in order to reach this target, the fares would increase at a faster rate than inflation.

Papakura Local Board (894) 10:40 - 11:00 Vision and outcomes are supported Concerned that the Plan may not adequately support Papakuras development as a Metropolitan Centre and Takaninis role as a town centre.

41

Does not believe that the network as proposed will offer real transport choice to people who work and shop in Papakura. Papakura shown as a minor Interchange with only limited connectivity from its surrounding hinterland. The Plan should make specific provision for extending the existing Park and Ride. It is essential that connecting bus services are made more frequent. Whilst extension to a new station at Drury is shown this is not well connected by bus services into the wider area. The Plan does not recognise the significant growth to the east of Takanini and does not indicate the proposed new station at Walters Road. The Plan does not recognise major change planned for as part of proposals for a Southern Growth area. Electrification to Pukekohe is not as critical to implement in the next 10 years as the southern rail spur from Manukau. The Plan does not deal effectively with the impact of electrification on existing road crossings or propose any grade separation. It should clarify how the rail based elements of the network integrate with the road network.

Howick Local Board (583) 11:00 - 11:20 Any improvements to PT services for Howick will be dependent on the completion of critical AMETI projects. This is reflected in the Draft Plan as timing of improved PT initiatives for East Auckland is proposed late 2015. Half Moon Bay Ferry service: The makeshift ferry terminal and poor parking can't continue, and remedying this must proceed 2013/14. Need to plan well in advance for adequate "park and ride" facilities as AMETI opens up other public transport options. Board strongly supports the direction of a PT network to one that is simpler and more connected with expanded frequency of service. Support the 7am -7pm "all day" proposal but ask what is planned for weekends and public holidays? Need to carefully ensure school links to new routing plans are given full consideration. Strongly support the zonal and integrated (HOP card) fare system with no penalties for transfers. We do not agree that ferry fares remain outside the zonal fare system. While we strongly support the frequency, and zonal and transfer proposals they will have little impact on public transport to and from Howick until the AMETI project is complete. Adequate numbers of suitable bus shelters needs to become a service standard as anticipated patronage grows.

Jonathan Godfrey (591) 11:20 - 11:30 Lack of comparison with existing systems renders the proposals useless. Focussing local connector routes on locations like Mangere Town Centre and expecting people to transfer is inferior to the current system The concept of a core network of high frequency services (15 minute frequency) between major centres with local connector routes at lower frequency sounds nice on paper. However, there is considerable scope for problems. The high frequency network is concentrated upon central Auckland, and the major centres have been redefined in a manner that fragments services. The proposed network structure forces excessive usage of transfers.

42

New zone structure is iniquitous Possible for restructuring to result in an apparent increase in the patronage in terms of numbers of trips taken, but a decrease in the absolute numbers of patrons due to the inconvenience caused by having to wait at transfer points. A change from 400 routes to 130, no matter how prettily it is dressed, is a service cut. Whilst there is scope for simplification of routes, this should not be at the expense of service provision. Targeting connector routes onto minor locations and expecting transfers is fundamentally flawed especially since it is being assumed that persons do not need to transfer again to reach their destination. The nature of Aucklands traffic renders transferring a very risky business: when there is a long wait if the connection is missed, it becomes highly stressful. Proposed 50 cent discount on onward trips should be higher to represent compensation for the wastage of the passengers time, as well as be applied to each transfer that is required. The current 20 minute transfer timeframe should be expanded. The proposed zone structure is biased against anyone living further west than New Lynn or further south than Onehunga or Otahuhu compared to residents of North Shore. Fares should be on a purely distance based tariff. Get rid of the glassed bus shelters they leak.

Barbara Insull (432) 11:30 - 11:40 Agree that a transformational change is needed to improve Auckland's transport system. I believe there is a strong demand for good PT and alternatives to car travel. Would like to see bikes considered a serious transport mode that complement the PT system. Agree with prioritising routes to key destinations -if this reduces inner suburb routes we need very good walking and cycling access.

Sealink Travel Group (NZ) Limited (592) 11:40 - 12:00 Concerned that the Plan does not give due consideration to ferries as a proven, viable and cost-effective public transport option. SeaLinks public transport services are currently supplied without any subsidy from the Council or the Government. Proposes the following passenger services changes to Appendix 1A, under Ferry Services: o Howick to Auckland CBD via St Heliers, Kohimarama and Devonport o Gulf Harbour to Auckland CBD via Browns Bay, Takapuna and Devonport. o Devonport to Wynyard Wharf. o Circular route between CBD, Devonport, Stanley Bay, Bayswater and Wynyard Wharf. o Circular Upper Harbour route between CBD, Northcote, Birkenhead, Island Bay, Beach Haven, Herald Island, Hobsonville, West Harbour, Te Atatu and Wynyard Wharf. o Manukau Harbour routes from Onehunga to Titirangi, Laingholm, Clarks Beach and Weymouth Proposes the following vehicular services changes to Appendix 1A, under Ferry Services: 1. Devonport to Mechanics Bay 2. Bayswater to Mechanics Bay/ Wynyard Wharf 3. Birkenhead to Wynyard Wharf

43

Inappropriate for Auckland Transport to notify and hold hearings on this Plan before the statutory basis for its Plan and PTOM has been determined. Ask that this Plan is withdrawn and thoroughly reviewed following completion of the Integrated Transport Plan and the coming into law of legislation amending the Public Transport Management Act 2008. Supports in principle the aims of the Plan but concerned that AT is missing a major opportunity to make a transformational shift in Aucklands Public Transport. To do this new avenues and ideas must be considered Parts of Auckland will benefit and thrive with a better bus or rail service. Rail is not planned for the North Shore or other significant areas of Auckland. Water touches virtually all of Greater Auckland and no area is far from the shore. Water does not suffer from congestion but AT is not giving sufficient credence to water based public transport. Plan should promote Ferry Services as a primary method of easing congestion, encouraging people to enjoy our harbour

John Ballantyne, Counties Manukau Grey Power (388) 12:00 - 12:10 I think it has good points and not so good, but will mention them later on. Not at present.

Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel (533) 12:10 - 12:30 Panel supports the draft RPTP with a few alterations and additions. Current links from Great North Road end satisfactory but can do with some improvement of frequency of bus services. Need to look at better transport service/links across towns e.g from Waitakere - South Auckland or vice versa; West Auckland- Albany (North Shore) etc; Transport needs for accessibility of health services for elderly Pasifika Frequent/accessible Weekend public transport to church/ recreational activities. Many Pacific families struggle with transport needs as there are multiple activities on weekends. The provision of connections that are close to where Pacific peoples live is essential. Recommendations: o Greater provision of PT services and connections in the South, South-West (Auckland Airport & Airport Precinct), South-East Auckland (collectively the Southern Initiative Zone) & West Auckland in the revised Frequent Service Network. o That the Frequent service network (FSN) includes a service from Otara Botany Town Centre. o That council adopts land use policies that increase housing affordability and incentivise development coordinated with the FSN o That the FSN provides greater access for communities to health services, community facilities/services, residential and shopping facilities. o That the FSN is responsive to the needs of Pacific Peoples in the Auckland region, specifically for the Southern and Western areas of Auckland. o Include a specific target around increasing Pasifika traveller numbers and experience. o Review the proposed zone boundaries to account for equity and affordability across the region. The proposed boundaries in the South and West Zones (3 zones to city) will have economic implications for Pasifika communities. o Give serious regard to concessions to incentivise low income travellers. Existing concessions do not provide for a low-income target group of which Pacific peoples are significantly represented.

44

Set realistic off-peak hours that take into account traffic flows as well as time. Flow in opposite directions may be considered off-peak

David Clemow (399) 12:30 - 12:40 The proposed network zoning bus services is very good. Parelleling bus services with trains like the 472 Redhill to Britomart aren't needed. However, places like Hunters Corner & Otahuhu Town Centre, where there are no nearby rail stations, need good bus connecting services.

Ronald Wilkins (393) 13:50 - 14:00 Strongly support a 15 minute service during peak periods. But it is essential to have feeder buses to link up with the trains Plenty of free all day parking at railway stations. As on superannuation I strongly support free transport from 0900 hours Mon-Fri. Definitely no cut off at 3pm as it would be impossible to get to Waiheke and back by 3pm. The Manukau loop has to provide into and then out to Papakura. Improvement to Pukekohe railway station ie closer to the overhead bridge. Also more long term parking Feeder buses to Tuakau, Waiuku etc.

Benjamin Ross (385) 14:00 - 14:10 The missing South Manukau Rail Link that would allow direct train services from Manukau to Papakura/Pukekohe without a transfer at Puhinui needs to be built by 2016 to enable the roll out of either an All Day or as Frequent Service Network. There is "latent" demand for such a South Link that would deem the investment economically and socially viable. Proposals for zone based fares: 4 Zones with Britomart as the central focus point. Propose a maximum fare cap of $15 per day. Family Pass should also be made available Propose the AT-HOP cards have a flat 20% discount High Priority to have the Walters Road (Takanini) Station and Park and Ride facility built by 2018 with the continued urban development in the area. Close Te Mahia and Takanini Stations (relocated Takanini Station to near Spartan Road crossing and add Park and Ride) Look at adding a 20 minute frequency bus service between Manurewa, The Gardens/Totara Heights, Porchester Road and Papakura Town Centre.

Douglas and Barbara Pitfield (487) 14:10 - 14:20 Have recently moved to Tuakau from Auckland. Support a bus link to Pukekohe and a rail link to Auckland. If these links are discontinued or abandoned we are faced with continuing to use our own transport. As we are both in our early seventies this is a bleak outlook.

Neil Young, Palms on George Ltd, Tuakau Hotel (580) 14:20 - 14:30

45

Re transport to affordable housing from Tuakau, Pokeno, Mercer, Te Kauwhata, Ngaruawahia, Huntly right through to Hamilton. Need to continue MAXX train service from Pukekohe to Tuakau.

Tuakau & Districts Development Association (436) 14:30 - 14:40 Support a passenger rail link between Auckland and Hamilton, and/or to extend the Maxx service beyond Pukekohe to Tuakau. In 2011 a petition of 3,500 signatures from the town of Tuakau was presented to Parliament asking that the Government supports Kiwirail in re-establishing a regular passenger rail commuter service between Auckland and Hamilton that services Tuakau. Neither service has been addressed in any form by the Plan. Diagram titled Auckland Frequent Service Network 2016 (proposed) does not even show Pukekohe. Assume this is an oversight in the printing, but it is indicative of the lack of interest shown towards the PT needs of the rural support communities that feed Auckland. Pukekohe needs a rail service that is as regular as the Paraparaumu service is to Wellington. Pukekohe also needs a weekend rail service. Draft Plan does not address the bus service that currently connects Tuakau and Port Waikato to Pukekohe. Plan should address the inter-regional public transport needs of the future.

Dee Bond (545) 14:40 - 14:50 Support a passenger rail link between Auckland and Hamilton, and/or to extend the Maxx service beyond Pukekohe to Tuakau. In 2011 a petition of 3,500 signatures from the town of Tuakau was presented to Parliament asking that the Government supports Kiwirail in re-establishing a regular passenger rail commuter service between Auckland and Hamilton that services Tuakau. Neither service has been addressed in any form by this new Transport Plan. Diagram Auckland Frequent Service Network 2016 (proposed) does not even show Pukekohe. Is indicative of the lack of interest shown towards the public transport needs of the rural support communities that feed Auckland. Pukekohe needs a rail service that is as regular as the Paraparaumu service is to Wellington. Pukekohe also needs a weekend rail service. Another existing service that has not been addressed is the bus service that currently connects Tuakau and Port Waikato to Pukekohe.

Pine Harbour Holdings Ltd (471) 14:50 - 15:10 Pine Harbour has recently completed a Private Plan Change which will allow for the continued re-development of Pine Harbour into a mixed use community centred around the marina and adding up to approximately 500 household units. Council has also initiated a further Plan Change for the 108ha of land adjacent to Pine Harbour which is to be re-zoned residential. Supports the recommended increase in ferry services including during the weekend and Friday nights Supports AT funding the Park and Ride at Pine Harbour (utilising existing Auckland Council land). Supports the outcomes, objective and supporting policies of the Plan.

46

Policy 1.4 Action (d) should be re-worded: Constructively collaborate with developers with greenfield and urban intensification proposals to complete an integrated Transport Assessment to ensure land use is integrated with the frequent network. Strongly supports the Vessel Standard. Auckland Transport needs to identify in the Plan the year by which all ferries operated in the Auckland Region must comply with this standard. Direct roading link between Beachlands and Pine Harbour should be identified in Table 8.2. The construction of Pine Harbour declamation/ferry terminal by AT should be identified in Table 8.2. Supports the identification of the future Pine Harbour Ferry Feeder Maraetai to Pine Harbour Ferry Terminal. However, it is considered that this service be initiated now.

Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board (890) 15:10 - 15:30 Supports the significant change in approach which will see current public resource used to connect bus and rail public transport in a way that improves frequency along major routes, but also increases the ease of connection between more destinations. Generally supports the approach to simplify the zonal boundaries. Does not support the current North and South Zones as they appear inequitable. Requests that both the North and South Zones be split at Constellation Drive and Manurewa respectively. Requests that the transition zone between Isthmus and South Zones be extended to cover Onehunga and Mangere Bridge, to discourage unnecessary travel across the Manukau Harbour Bridge. Supports increasing the provision of park and ride at the Glen Innes station. Requests that priority be given to the upgrading of the bus interchange at Glen Innes. Requests that the eventual co-location of the bus interchange and rail station at Onehunga be planned for, as a matter of priority. Tamaki Train Station should be reinstated. Provisions around cycling be expanded. Should include requiring interchanges to provide a prescribed minimum of cycling facilities which allow the storage of cycles. Strongly requests that the existing use of Gold Cards during afternoon peak should continue. Requests that all data collected on the performance of the public transport network be made publicly accessible.

Edward Fletcher (416) 15:30 - 15:40 More emphasis on bicycle community. Greater provision of cycle parking Greater subsidy of fares initially to encourage patronage Easier mixing of types of traffic - pedestrians are priority 1) Bicycle (commuter) 2) Buses 3) Trucks (delivery) 4) cars 5)

Gary McGuire, TDDA (69) 15:40 - 15:50 Reinstatement of the passenger rail service to Tuakau: Approximately 200 of the 1,000 daily park and ride patrons at Pukekohe rail station come from Tuakau. Trains that stop at Pukekohe have to change tracks to return to Auckland. Currently they travel half way to Buckland, wait 20 minutes for the tracks to change then return to Pukekohe. Trains could travel to Tuakau in that time and provide a much needed service at no extra cost. Support electrification of the rail to Papakura and eventually through to Hamilton.

47

TDDA submitted 3,500 signatures to Parliament requesting that their rail service be reinstated. All that is needed is the upgrading of the railway station at Tuakau and a track changer. Half a million dollars has already been set aside for the upgrade of the rail station by Waikato District Council.

Pukekohe Business Association (320) 15:50 - 16:00 Disappointing to find Pukekohe off the picture in figure 2-1: Pukekohe does not feature on any of the maps from 5-2, to 5-6. It is hard to determine where this network begins and ends. Schedule of Services to be provided by bus looks acceptable to and from Pukekohe although we would like more clarity about when future services are due to begin. Concern about the loss of services to Tuakau and Port Waikato. Proposed rail services between Pukekohe and Papakura every 15 minutes during peak times and every 30 minutes off peak cannot come soon enough! The current lack of weekend services is appalling. Disappointed with drop of the day hopper pass. Concern about the inability to purchase tickets on the train, without a ticket counter at the Pukekohe station. In favour of policy 4.9 that Auckland Transport staff should have the authority to ensure all users pay the correct fare. Policy 6.1 is also positive provided the customers feedback is considered appropriately. Policy 6.4 it would be great to have you are here signage at each station. Supportive of policy 7.5, working with local communities to meet their specific needs.

Yatish Kumar (4) 16:00 - 16:10

Buses leaving from City: don't send all at the same time. Try and stagger them by giving 3 to 5 min gap in between. This will ensure commuters on common route will have more frequent service. Single ticket across wider Auckland should be used. This will make the routes more efficient & faster by helping drivers in issuing less tickets for 1 journey. Flyers / news letters should be sent to all households.

Theresa McDonald (433) 16:10 - 16:20 Support the reduction in the number of fare zones. Do not support inconsistencies in the allocation of the fare zones - Kelston & Papatoetoe will be three zones whereas Albany will be two zones; yet Albany is further from the CBD. Support a policy of exact coin fares on buses. Drivers cannot drive the bus if they are constantly making change for passengers. Exact coin fare has been policy overseas for over 40 years and both residents and tourists cope well. Would also improve security for the bus drivers. Provide bus lanes on the Southern Motorway (both directions) from Redoubt Road to Symonds St

48

Extremely disappointed to see no #477 Papakura Express buses (or equivalent) in the Draft RPTP. These buses are well patronised in the morning rush hours by both workers and students. Currently it takes me 60 minutes on the 477 bus to travel from Papakura to Symonds St. In the Draft RPTP, the trip will take me 105 minutes.

Greater East Tamaki Business Association (398) 16:20 - 16:30 Clarify how the principles of the new operating network will apply to industrial areas. Industrial hubs such as ours rely upon the efficient movement of people to attract and retain staff. A recent business survey showed that lack of public transport services is a significant issue in this area. Not clear how the proposed network system will accommodate people who do not have access to the network. Industrial areas have shift workers who do not fit in with the standard operating network. A number of blue collar workers come from low socio economic areas who are more likely to be transport disadvantaged and less likely to have vehicles at home. There is also difficulty for walking and cycling in industrial areas.

Fiona Robertson, Newflands Limited (191) 16:40 - 16:50 Need to have a regular service running at least hourly between Auckland and Hamilton. Tuakau has been significantly affected by not being included as an add on station with rail and no infrastructure of any significance for any form of regular public transport. Pukekohe/Tuakau is a huge area of growth and requires a regular supported form of public transport to both Auckland and Hamilton. As we expand we need to have a reliable form of public transport to get employees to and from work. It would enable students to travel between cities for work e.g. Manukau tech students working on projects in our company.

Colin Thompson, Middlemore Hospital (147) 16:50 - 17:00 From a health point of view, proposed network is a good step forward. For a health transport system, system should encourage increased activity levels, seek the minimum contribution of 'small particles' and other pollutants, and should be safe. Public transport is an improvement on private transport in these regards. Plan needs to ensure that public transport does not limit provision for world-class walkways and cycleways. Good that the 'needs of cyclists and pedestrians are recognised' (Section 6.5), but need to go further and require AT to set design standards encouraging cycling and walking.

49

PART 3: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS BY TOPIC

This part of the report presents an analysis of all written submissions by topic area. The format of this part generally follows the order of the Draft RPTP. For each topic area, the key submission points are summarised, illustrated where appropriate with examples from specific submissions (with their submission numbers). This is followed by a discussion based on officer comments, and recommendations.

Legal issues
Timing relative to the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill Some submitters (notably Sealink, 592) have questioned the appropriateness of consulting on the Draft RPTP at this time, when the legislation relating to RPTPs is under review by Parliament. The submitters note that the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill (LTMA Bill) will repeal the Public Transport Management Act (PTMA), and make changes to the way in which RPTPs must be prepared; and that the Select Committee process may make further amendments to the Bill, Sealink has proposed that the process be deferred until the LTMA Bill has been passed. Other submitters (notably bus operators) have suggested that the Draft does not go far enough to incorporate the changes proposed in the LTMA Bill, especially in relation to policies related to the determination of units. They have proposed that the RPTP be strengthened to fully comply with the Bill. The Auckland Council has also suggested that the RPTP be future-proofed to avoid the need for further changes to be made once the new legislation is in place. The Fullers submission (581) has raised issues in relation to the manner in which the Draft RPTP has dealt with exempt services, particularly the Devonport and Waiheke ferry services which are defined as exempt in the LTMA Bill. Discussion: It is acknowledged that some of the language used in the draft RPTP may have caused some confusion as to whether it has been prepared pursuant to the PTMA or the proposed changes in the LTMA Bill. In particular, the use of the term exempt services could be interpreted as meaning that AT considers that the Bill must be enacted before PTOM can be introduced. This is not the case. ATs advice is that PTOM (full service contracting other than services we choose to exempt) is simply the name for a procurement framework that can be implemented under the existing PTMA. This means that there is no question of the process being invalid because of the Bill not yet being enacted, as the process is following the current PTMA and does not rely on the new LTMA provisions. Officers are of the opinion that it is unwise to put this process on hold pending passage of legislation, as this would introduce uncertainty and delay into the implementation of the public transport improvements outlined in the Draft RPTP. 50

It is proposed that the Draft RPTP be amended to clarify that the RPTP has been prepared under the PTMA, but future-proofed for the currently proposed LTMA Bill. It is also proposed to clarify the situation in relation to exempt services, and to refer to these only within the context of the proposed legislation. In other instances, services should be referenced as existing commercial services and policies and actions focused on negotiation with the relevant operators to integrate these services with the wider regional network. Recommendations: Amend the introductory text to explain that the RPTP has been prepared under the PTMA, but is future proofed for the currently proposed LTMA Bill. Include text to clarify the relationship between PTOM implementation and enactment of the LTMA Bill, stating that enactment of the Bill is not a requirement for PTOM implementation. Ensure that the RPTP uses terminology from the PTMA rather than the LTMA Bill. In particular, where the current draft RPTP references 'exempt' services it should state that under the PTMA these will remain commercial services, and that these would transition to exempt services under the LTMA Bill as currently drafted.

Significant response themes

The submission response form invited submitters to indicate the extent to which they supported two key areas of the Draft RPTP: the new network concept, and the approach to fares and ticketing. Approximately 40% of submitters responded to these questions. Their responses indicate a high level of support for the overall approach, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 below. In each case, approximately 70% of respondents indicated either support or strong support for the direction taken in the Draft RPTP. As noted below, however, some of these submitters raised issues of detail in relation to these general areas. Network structure Figure 1 shows submitter response to the question asking whether the extent to which they supported or opposed the proposed network structure. 70% of respondents indicated either support or strong support. Given the fact that the new network was designed to use the same level of resources as the existing network, this is a strong level of endorsement for the approach taken. However, the overall support for the new network structure is tempered by a number of submissions that raised concerns about the need for transfers, and whether connecting services would be sufficiently reliable, and sufficient infrastructure would be in place to enable transfers to be made quickly, safely, and conveniently. A number of submitters also raised route or 51

location-specific issues relating to the new network, with concerns over the potential loss of direct connections. These concerns are addressed in more detail in the discussion on Chapters 5, 6 and 7 below. Figure 1: Extent of support for proposed public transport network approach
Strongly Support Support Neutral Oppose Strongly oppose
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Fares and ticketing Figure 2 shows submitter response to the question asking whether the extent to which they supported or opposed the fares and ticketing policies in the Draft RPTP. 70% of respondents indicated either support or strong support. Figure 2: Extent of support for proposed fares and ticketing policies
Strongly Support Support Neutral Oppose Strongly oppose

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

The overall support for the fares and ticketing policies in the Draft RPTP reflected submitter support for a simpler, more integrated system. As a consequence, the zonal fare system was generally supported by submitters, but a large number raised concerns with the proposed zone boundaries identified in the Draft. In particular, submitters considered that 52

the zone boundaries did not provide for equitable treatment between the North Shore (2 zones to the CBD) and West and South Auckland (3 zones). A significant number of submissions also raised concerns about the cost implications for short trips across zone boundaries, and the exclusion of ferry fares from the zone structure. Another area of submitter concern in relation to fares and ticketing was the potential for changes to concession fare arrangements, especially the availability of free travel for SuperGold card holders in the PM peak period, and, to a lesser extent, the availability of tertiary concessions. These concerns are addressed in more detail below in the discussion on Fares and Ticketing (section 6.4).

Tuakau services Approximately 300 submissions were received from residents of Tuakau and surrounding areas, requesting an extension of the rail service to Tuakau, and the reinstatement of bus services between Tuakau and Pukekohe. These submissions are addressed as part of the discussion below as part of Section 6.2 (inter-regional services).

Additional services and resource constraints A large number of submissions included requests for additional services, the retention of existing direct connections, increased frequencies, or the extension of service operating periods. Some submissions also called for the introduction of new modes. The service levels provided for in the Draft RPTP were designed to use approximately the same amount of resources as the current system, but to re-arrange these to enable an overall improvement in service levels (particularly improved frequency and connections to a wider range of destinations). This situation is alluded to in the Draft, but it would be useful to make it more explicit. While individual proposals to increase service levels or introduce additional services may have merit, they can only be achieved through either a reallocation of existing resources (which will generally involve a reduction in service levels elsewhere in the network); or an additional amount of funding. The Hearing Panel will need to bear this situation in mind as it considers requests from submitters to increase service levels. A number of submissions related to the specific implementation of services in local areas. These matters will be addressed as part of the staged implementation of the Plan, and it is intended that these submitters will be contacted at the appropriate time as part of the local consultation process.

53

Chapter Issues
The remainder of this report addresses issues in the order in which they appear in the Draft RPTP. Submissions related to matters raised in the Executive Summary are addressed in the relevant section of the main document. The following sections summarise the key points raised in submission, illustrated with reference to examples where appropriate; present a brief officer response to the issues raised; and where appropriate, a recommended amendment to the Draft RPTP.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Reasons for review As noted above, some submissions questioned the appropriateness of consulting on the Draft RPTP at this time, when the legislation relating to RPTPs is under review by Parliament. Sealink (592) has proposed that the process be deferred until the LTMA Bill has been passed. On the other hand, other submitters (notably bus operators) have suggested that the RPTP should be strengthened to fully comply with the Bill. Discussion: The Draft RPTP has been prepared following the current PTMA, and does not rely on the new LTMA provisions. Officers are of the opinion that it is unwise to put this process on hold pending passage of legislation, as this would introduce uncertainty and delay into the implementation of the public transport improvements outlined in the Draft RPTP. Recommendation: Include additional text in section 1.2 to explain the relationship with the LTMA Bill.

Scope of the Plan The Draft RPTP has restricted its scope to services within the Auckland region. A large number of submissions referred to the need for services that extend beyond the Auckland region boundary, especially into Waikato (e.g. Tuakau). Discussion: The potential for services that extend beyond the regional boundary (which may be jointly funded by neighbouring regions) should be referenced in the RPTP. An additional Policy 2.9 is recommended under the heading Inter-regional service: Tuakau/Waikato which is discussed later in the report. Recommendation: Amend scope text to refer to the way in which the RPTP deals with inter-regional services

54

Chapter 2: Strategic Context

Factors influencing public transport use Submissions requested a greater emphasis on socio-economic and demographic factors. For example, MRCagney (469) submitted that the strategic drives for the proposed changes to PT are not just reactive to limitations of expanding the road network, but various socioeconomic and demographic factors that make PT more attractive. The Plan should also acknowledge that achieving Auckland Plan targets for PT patronage growth over the long term is dependent on the integrating of policies across parking, land use zoning, etc. not just level of funding. Discussion: Agree that the Plan could reflect the impact of high and rising fuel prices and an ageing population which will make quality PT more attractive. Complementary parking policy is a strong push factor to PT use and a deliberate policy decision. Recommendations: Include points about current parking policy, fuel prices and ageing population making PT more attractive into section 2.2 Include new Policy 1.5 (page 26) suggested wording: "Align desired public transport outcomes and parking policy initiatives" with action "Ensure the complementary design of public transport services and parking regulations and policies"

Statutory requirements Sealink (592) has submitted that the Plan does not meet its statutory requirements, because insufficient regard has been paid to the relative efficiency and effectiveness of different modes of public transport, and the most investment is being made in the least efficient and effective mode of public transport, i.e. rail. Discussion: Officers do not agree with this submission point. The investment in rail is consistent with well established policies in the Auckland region, including the Auckland Plan and the Regional Land Transport Strategy. The RPTP gives effect to these policies, and it is not appropriate that they are revisited as part of this process. Recommendation: No change Other plans and strategies Some submitters noted a lack of cohesion with other plans e.g. the Waterfront Plan and the Central City Master Plan (e.g. Heart of the City 590, Eden Terrace Business Assn 445). Discussion: The current Draft highlights the high level statutory plans, and does not detail all other plans and strategies that will impact on PT. A generic reference to these documents would be of value, however. Recommendation: Include a generic reference to other planning documents 55

Chapter 3: Our Current Public Transport System

Terminology Submissions suggested that some of the terminology used requires better explanation; for example, there is a need to define route variation as used to describe current services. Discussion: The reference to route variation is confusing, and should be removed. Recommendation: Reword text at bottom of P12 to read: "The existing network of bus routes is complex, with around 400 individual route numbers employed different route variations. Many of these routes variations are..." Benefits of public transport The Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA, 537) submitted that the RPTP should explicitly recognise issues of increasing transport-related energy use and the role of public transport in reducing reliance on private motor vehicles with associated efficiency benefits. The Ministry of Education (547) requested a stronger focus in the final Plan on the crosscutting issues of road and transport safety, with a specific link to the Safer Journeys Strategy with its safe system approach. Discussion: The suggestions are supported. Additional references to these issues are proposed. Recommendations: Insert a new line in Table 3.2 that discusses this issue and outline the proposed response - significant modal shift onto newer, cleaner, heavily loaded diesel buses and electric trains. Include stronger reference to safety at access points to PT, especially where connections are required; and as an element in driver training.

Chapter 4: What we want to achieve

Vision, outcomes and objectives Most submissions on this Chapter were in support of the vision, outcomes and objectives. MRCagney (469) proposed a slight amendment to the vision statement to refer to a network that caters for rather than offers a wider range of trips. They also suggested combining the objectives into a smaller number. Discussion: The proposed amendment to the vision better describes the intention of the new network. Given the broad level of support for the objectives from other submitters, however,

56

the suggestion to reduce the number of objectives does not appear to be warranted, and may cause confusion. Recommendations: Revise vision (p15) as follows: An integrated, efficient and effective public transport network that offers caters for a wider range of trips and is the mode of choice for an increasing number of Aucklanders. Retain objectives

Measures and targets Some submitters felt that the patronage and mode share targets identified in the Draft are too low, considering the level of transformational shift that the Auckland Plan envisages, and the extent of the network changes proposed. Others questioned why there is a difference between the Auckland Plan and the funded target for 2022. Suggestions were made in relation to the targets for the % of households within 500 metres of the frequent network. Some considered this target to be too low; others were concerned that it focussed only on those residents with access to the frequent service network, but ignored others. There was also support for the target to reflect employment as well as household locations. Some submitters questioned the patronage measure, and whether a measure of passenger boardings is appropriate given the new network will require more transfers. Other outcomes and measures suggested by submitters include: Reduce average annual trip kms per person, regardless of mode (Heart of the City 590) % of households within 200 metres of PT stops with at least 30 minute frequency (Auckland Disability Law, 387) Discussion: The targets in table 4-1 are aligned with the Auckland Plan targets. The patronage target (103 million trips) is the funded target which shows what can be achieved based on current funded projects included in Auckland Council's Long Term Plan. The Auckland Plan aims at 140 million trips by 2022, but to achieve this stretch target will require additional funding for operations and infrastructure to what is already available. The annual measure of passengers per capita, and the access distance of 500m are specified In the Auckland Plan. The RPTP targets are aligned to the Auckland Plan, but the actual levels may need to be reviewed in the light of the service changes proposed. The addition of access to employment should be considered. Recommendations: Review the target for % of households and employment located within 500 metres of the frequent network Consider adding a target for access to the wider PT network 57

Include footnote to explain the difference between the Auckland Plan and funded targets.

Chapter 5: Key Directions

As noted above, most submitters were supportive of the key directions in the Draft RPTP. City Rail Link Submitters appeared to acknowledge that the focus of the Draft RPTP, with its 10 year planning horizon, was on the development of the system ahead of the City Rail Link (CRL) implementation. However, some submissions considered that the CRL should be more fully reflected in the Draft, especially in the description of the network in 2022. Some submitters were concerned that by assuming that the as-yet unfunded CRL would be built by the end of the planning period, the Draft was flawed. Bus operators submitted that the CRL could be trialled using buses in the meantime. However, other submitters (e.g. Heart of the City 590, Viaduct Harbour Holdings 557) were concerned at the level of central city and Wynyard Quarter bus movements already provided for in the Draft RPTP, and their impact on the local environment in those areas. Discussion: The RPTP is focused on the improvements needed to achieve an integrated public transport network before the completion of the CRL (which is planned to be operational towards the end of the planning period), to ensure that network improvements can be successful regardless of the timing of the CRL, and to identify those changes that are needed to maximise the benefits of the CRL and to ensure its successful implementation when it does occur. As such, the specific timing of the CRL should not have a significant impact on the approach taken in this RPTP. Modelled demand to and from the CBD suggests that bus based solutions will not cope - too many buses will be required resulting in heavy congestion in the CBD. The grade separated City Rail Link will enable the greater capacity required without clogging up CBD roads. Note that the interim network will operate without the need for the CRL (if it is delayed). It is difficult to see how buses could replicate the patronage potential of the CRL, and any attempt to do so would involve additional bus/rail transfers close to the central city. Recommendation: Retain existing references to CRL.

Ferry services A number of submissions considered that the draft RPTP does not go far enough in relation to the future development of ferry services. These submitters want to see a greater role for ferries as part of the frequent and all day networks.

58

Discussion: The contribution of ferries was considered as an integral part of the development of the new network. While ferries are an integral part of the PT network they play a targeted role. Ferries as a mode tend to be more expensive to operate and require higher subsidies, and in some cases require expensive infrastructure to overcome the challenges of tidal and shallow beaches. However, Auckland Transport does intend to revisit the role that ferries may play via the development of a new Ferry Plan for the city. Recommendations: Insert a new paragraph in Key Directions (Chapter 5) re role of ferries: The contribution of ferry services was considered in the development of the new network. While ferries are an integral part of the PT network they play a targeted role, connecting coastal communities with the CBD. Ferries as a mode tend to have higher capital and operating costs and in some cases require expensive infrastructure to overcome the challenges of Aucklands tidal and shallow beaches. Possible new ferry services may be investigated in future if funding permits, to ascertain potential demand and the feasibility of providing infrastructure and services. Local area service planning will encompass ferry services and also the role of feeder buses to provide connections to ferries. Add a new policy to Section 6.2 to Review and Develop a revised Ferry Plan for Auckland, with actions that work with key stakeholders and service providers to review the role that ferries currently play and how this might evolve in the future.

Other modes Some submissions expressed a preference for new public transport modes to be investigated and/or implemented in Auckland. This included trams (especially between the Wynyard Quarter, city centre and St Heliers, and in Queen Street). Submissions also called for a stronger commitment to electric vehicles (trams, light rail and electric buses, in addition to rail electrification). Discussion: The RPTP is a 10-year plan and is proposing to build a public transport network that will maximise the benefits of electrification and prepare for the CRL being completed towards the end of the period. The RPTP lists services around known and signalled infrastructure projects that are proposed in the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Transport Regional Land Transport Programme. New rail lines and additional modes are longer term strategic direction issues and therefore beyond the scope of the current 10 year horison of the RPTP. Recommendation: No change

Integration with walking and cycling A number of submitters felt that the key directions chapter needed to address the broader context within which public transport network will be developed, and how it will be integrated with other transport modes. In particular, submitters noted the need for the Chapter to address integration with walking and cycling.

59

Discussion: It is agreed that the RPTP should make provision for a more flexible approach to access to the PT system, as a consequence of the new network design, and particularly acknowledge the role of walking and cycling to support the new network. Recommendation: Add text to Ch 5 Key Directions as follows: In addition, improvements to the connectivity of walking and cycling networks with proposed public transport interchanges and stops are essential to improve access to the proposed simplified public transport network. These improvements would extend opportunities to benefit from the improved public transport services as part of a wider whole journey approach.

Service categories The descriptions used for the service categories caused concerns for some submitters. In particular, the use of the term frequent in both the frequent service network, and the frequent service layer within that network was seen as confusing. The distinctions between connector, local, peak only and targeted services were also queried by some submitters. Some (e.g. MRCagney, 469) suggested a simpler nomenclature (rapid, frequent, regular, targeted). The use of the term layers in Figure 5.1 was also criticised. Other submissions raised questions about the definitions of all day, and suggested that the hours of operation should be longer. NZ Bus (536) called for clarification on whether the frequent service network would operate 7 days a week. Other submissions raised questions about the definitions of all day, and suggested that the hours of operation should be longer. The maps in Chapter 5 were generally seen as helpful, although some submitters noted that the detail (especially in the city centre) was difficult to determine. By not illustrating local and peak-only services, the diagrams also created the impression for some submitters that services were being cut. Discussion: The terminology used was an attempt to move away from the previous complex descriptors of RTN, QTN and LCN, providing terms that described the level and nature of service to be provided, rather than terms that overlap with allied infrastructure provision. Figure 5-1 (page 19) is a balance in the interest of clear communication of a) the Rapid and Frequent layers function overall, and b) not losing the communication of a significant increase in frequency across the bus work i.e the Frequent layer. The retention of peakonly services is intended to maintain direct peak period services for commuter trips where demand warrents them. Officers acknowledge that the absence of peak only and local services in the plans published in the Draft may have conveyed an impression that these services are no longer proposed. This is not the case, and the plan should be more explicit about the role of such services (e.g. by including cross-references in Chapter 5 and its diagrams, and the schedules in Appendix 1A). 60

Recommendation: Clarify the service layer terminology and diagrams Be more explicit about peak only and local services by cross-referencing the text and maps in Ch5 to the service descriptions in Appendix 1A.

Resource allocation The need to emphasise that proposed network is using the same amount of resources as are used now, just more efficiently, was identified in submissions. Discussion: It is agreed that this is a point worth making given the funding constraints and concern about increased costs and Auckland rate rises. Recommendation: Amend sentence on page 17 as follows: The approach outlined in the draft Plan responds by setting out a new, integrated network structure for Auckland's public transport system which allows improved levels of service through better utilisation of the current level of resources.

Network focus on CBD Some submitters were concerned that the new network remains strongly CBD-centric, especially with its focus on the rail system. They note that not everyone is interested in travelling to the city centre, and enabling travel across Auckland should be a key goal. Discussion: The network proposals have been designed to provide a much greater amount of cross town focused service, than currently exists. The connected network means that travel to destinations outside the CBD will be more possible, albeit with transfers required in some cases. Recommendation: No change

Extensions to frequent network Extensions to the network: there was some submitter support for extending the electrified rail to Pukekohe, although some submitters suggested that a more important priority was to establish a rail connection to Manukau from the south. The need for earlier progress on rail to the airport was also identified by some. Auckland Airport (543) submitted that the Airbus service, although a proposed exempt service, should be shown as part of the frequent service network. Discussion: The extension of the electrified rail network to Pukekohe is under investigation. Should this result in a change to service levels, a future variation to the RPTP may be necessary (although note that service levels can exceed those stated in the RPTP). 61

An investigation into the viability of a Manukau Southern link is currently underway via Auckland Council. However, such a connection would be costly, and is not a current priority for Auckland Transport, given other essential capital works and pressure on operating costs. All rail stations south of Manukau as far as Papakura will continue to have direct bus services to and from Manukau in close proximity. Extension of rail to the airport is expected to be beyond the 10-year scope of this RPTP. However, the Airbus service should be referenced in the Maps showing the frequent service network as it meets the required level of service. Recommendations: include text to describe potential extensions to the frequent service network; include reference to the Airbus service in Maps

Concerns with the network concept A significant number of submitters, including many who supported the overall network concept, pointed to potential difficulties in its implementation. A key issue will be the need to ensure reliable, convenient and safe connections where these are necessary to make trips by public transport. This has a number of dimensions, including the need for: reliable journey times on connecting services to enable timed connections sufficient frequency on connector routes to enable timely transfers well designed infrastructure, especially at interchanges, to facilitate safe and convenient connections route and interchange design that avoids long walks between connecting services special attention to the needs of disabled passengers when connections are required a strong focus on information, both visual and audio In addition, submitters provided a number of examples of situations where the new network concept may result in dis-benefits to existing users, mainly due to the potential loss of existing direct services. Some submitters (e.g. J Godfrey, 591) called for a more formal and explicit comparison of how well the new network will perform in comparison to the current network. C Harland (572) felt that this is particularly important in low socio-economic areas, to avoid the possibility that local consultation on specific services will become subservient to the agreed concept. Others pointed to the need for the detailed implementation phase to take particular care to ensure that changes are carefully handled, given the fact that some existing passengers will need to make changes to well-established travel patterns. For example, the BCA (518) suggested that each individual service change should proceed only if there is a positive answer to the question will this change save customers time or money? Discussion: The issues raised in these submissions were considered as part of the network planning process, and the challenges that the new network presents are not underestimated 62

by AT. Many of the policies in Chapter 6 have arisen from an acknowledgement that the changes will present a number of challenges that will require careful management. The weight of submissions supports the shift to a simpler, integrated network, and on this basis the general direction should be affirmed. The needs of low socio-economic areas and impact on established travel patterns will be taken into account through local consultation to finalise service design however for the greater good of Auckland the overall proposed network direction should be affirmed. The potential for the loss of direct services is mitigated by the provision of peak-only services, if demand warrents. It is acknowledged, however, that the Draft RPTP should more explicitly have highlight the policies and actions that are designed to address the challenges identified (e.g. ticketing and fares, infrastructure, customer interface). Some additional text in Chapter 5 to make these points more explicit would be appropriate. Specific responses to the issues raised are also addressed in more detail in the discussion on submissions to Chapter 6, below. Recommendation: Add text to Chapter 5 to more explicitly show the challenges inherent in the new network, and to reference the policies that have been included to address these.

Chapter 6: Policies and Actions

A large number of submissions were received on the detail of the policies and actions in Chapter 6. These are dealt with in this report on a section by section basis.

Network structure policies (Section 6.1)

As noted above, submissions were generally in favour of the network structure, which suggests that it should be confirmed. The following submission points relate to the policy detail in section 6.1. Operating period for frequent services A number of submissions considered the 7am to 7pm span for operation of the frequent network at the 15 minute minimum headway to be insufficient, and called for a longer span of frequent operation. NZ Bus (536) sought clarification that the frequent network was intended to operate 7 days a week. Discussion: The 7am to 7pm time span is for the initial stages of operation, and a 7 day operation is intended as a target. The eventual target operating period for the frequent service network is 6am to 9pm on weekdays, but the timing of this extension is dependent on resources and demand. Services will continue to operate beyond these hours, but not necessarily at the defined level of frequent service. Recommendation: 63

No change, but clarify that the 7am to 7pm time span is a minimum, and applies 7 days. Extension of the time span will depend on resources and demand.

Access distance to frequent service network Some submissions requested clarification of the access standard for the frequent service network, and suggested it should specifically refer to walk distance to a stop. Others suggested additional service access standards (e.g. Auckland Disability Law, 387: % of households within 200m of a stop providing at least a 30 min service: target 90% by 2022). Discussion: Generally walk distance will be appropriate, and a qualified amendment is suggested. The suggestion of a 200 metre standard is unlikely to be achievable without a very significant increase in resources and a more complex route structure. Note that an overall network standard is included in Policy 2.2. Recommendation: Amend action under Policy 1.2 to refer to a 500 metre walk

Land use integration Some submitters identified the need to strengthen the policies relating to land use and transport integration. For example, Traffic & Transportation Engineers Ltd (468) noted the opportunity to make a stronger connection between the RPTP and the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) Guidelines, which will be finalised as part of the Unitary Plan. The need for transport and land use to be mutually supportive was also raised. Pine Harbour Holdings (471) noted the need to recognise that integration of land use with the transportation network is achieved through constructive collaboration, rather than just through active encouragement, and suggested that action (d) be re-worded accordingly. Discussion: reference to the ITA Guidelines would be appropriate, noting that these are likely to be bundled with Councils Unitary Plan which still being developed. The action should make reference to this. Collaboration suggest developers and Council / AT interests are aligned in land development processes which is not always the case no change recommended. Recommendations: Policy 1.4: change wording to Provide mutually supportive land use and public transport development policies Policy 1.4 new action - "Work with the Auckland Council to ensure that the Integrated Transport Assessment guidelines are appropriately included in the Unitary Plan to ensure consideration of the provision of public transport is adequate." Policy 1.4 action d rewording - "Actively encourage and provide guidance to developers with greenfield and urban intensification proposals to complete an Integrated Transport Assessment to ensure land use is integrated with the frequent network"

64

Integration with parking policies Some submitters felt that the Draft RPTP needed to place more emphasis on integration with policies on the supply and pricing of parking. Discussion: A more formal alignment with parking policies in the RPTP would be appropriate, especially in view of Auckland Transports parking responsibilities.

Recommendation: Include new Policy 1.5 (page 26) suggested wording: "Align desired public transport outcomes and parking policy initiatives" with action:Ensure the complementary design of public transport services and parking regulations and policies

Integrated service network policies (Section 6.2)

Service layers nomenclature As noted above, some submitters found the service layer descriptions confusing, especially the dual use of the term frequent. Some suggestions for changes to the layer names were made. Discussion: A decision on any changes to the layer names in Policy 2.1 is dependent on the response to the previous discussion on Chapter 5. Recommendation: Review names and descriptions in Policy 2.1 in the light of decisions on the service categories in Chapter 5.

Access distance Submissions sought clarification that the 500 metres access distance in Policy 2.2 refers to walk distance. Discussion: As noted above, this clarification is appropriate. Recommendation: Amend action under Policy 2.2 to refer to a 500 metre walk

Routing and interchange A number of submissions identified the need for routes and interchanges to be carefully designed to enable convenient connections. Examples were given of interchange locations that submitters considered may not be convenient to existing users. These included Takapuna passengers needing to transfer at Akoranga; the relocation of the Panmure interchange away from the Queens Road shops; and the lack of good connections into Papakura from surrounding hinterland. 65

A large number of submissions (including a number from local boards) identified specific routes that they wanted to see retained or added to the network, to address particular access needs for local communities. The need for better cross-town connections was also identified by a number of submitters, and some suggested expanding the concept of the Link services to other metropolitan centres (e.g. Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, 884). The volume of buses in and around some interchange locations and in sensitive areas with high pedestrian volumes was highlighted as a problem by some submitters, notably in the city centre (Heart of the City, 590), and the Wynyard Quarter (Waterfront Auckland, 879). Several submissions identified unreliable running times as a potential problem where trips required connections to be made. They called for a commitment to ensuring that service design would keep waiting times to a minimum. The Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS, 522) suggested establishing a target maximum wait time for transfers. Discussion: As noted in the Draft RPTP, detailed routing issues will be addressed as part of the local consultation process. However, the integrated network does provide improved mobility opportunities and access to a wider range of destinations, and there are policies and actions in the Draft RPTP that address the need to ensure reliable travel times. For example, actions 5.1 a) and b) recognise the importance of co-ordinated planning for services and infrastructure, and the need for bus priority measures is recognised in policy 5.4. A specific focus on minimising waiting times at interchanges would be appropriate, however. Recommendation: Policy 2.3 - add to the action: Design routes, interchanges and timetables to provide convenient connections between services and to minimise waiting time for connections

Services to newly developing areas Submitters were generally supportive of policy 2.4 and associated actions to introduce services to newly developing areas. A number of growth areas with little or no current service were identified. The need to work more closely with developers to ensure provision is made for public transport, and the potential use of the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) guidelines was also noted, Discussion: Integration between transport and land use, and the use of the ITA Guidelines, has been referenced in previous sections. Part of this discussion was an additional proposed reference in the actions under policy 2.4. Recommendation: Policy 2.4 new action - "Actively encourage and provide guidance to developers with greenfield and urban intensification proposals to complete an Integrated Transport Assessment to ensure adequate consideration is given to public transport requirements."

66

Service adjustments Some submitters (e.g. J Johnston 382, Puketapapa LB 895) saw policy 2.7 as opening the potential for future cuts in service levels, but others considered that the use of thresholds to trigger service reviews allows services to be better managed to meet variations in demand. NZ Bus (536) is supportive of the approach, but seeks further detail on the 85% capacity calculation. Discussion: Regular monitoring and review will allow identification of services that may require adjustment. The explicit role of the new PTOM contracts is to grow demand in partnership between AT and operators. Any reduction of service would be a last resort, but the policy is required to ensure that resources are focused to best effect across the whole network. The point raised by NZ Bus is a valid one, and amendment to Policy 2.7 action a) is proposed to aid clarity, using the triggers that were included in the 2010 RPTP. Recommendation: Replace bulleted text under Action (a) with the minimum and maximum service review triggers contained within the 2010 RPTP i.e. based upon percentage capacity triggers on individual routes.

Inter-regional services: Tuakau/Waikato A very large number of submissions called for the RPTP to make provision for a commuter rail service to be extended to Tuakau; and for the continuation of the bus service between Tuakau and Pukekohe. It was noted that the Waikato District Council has made financial provision for an upgrade to the Tuakau station to facilitate a rail service, as part of the first stage of a commuter connection to Hamilton. Discussion: It is acknowledged that most trips from Tuakau are northwards towards Auckland. Because Tuakau lies outside the Auckland region, Auckland Transport will need to work with Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Waikato District Council and NZTA to explore the most cost effective and equitable manner in which public transport services to Tuakau could be provided in the future. Extending train service to Tuakau would need to be justified through an appropriate business case. The potential for rail services to Tuakau is also contingent upon the outcome of any decision to electrify the rail line between Papakura and Pukekohe. The electrification of this section of the line would create additional challenges, as a diesel shuttle for the final few kilometres to Tuakau would be highly unlikely to be justifiable. Auckland Transport will continue to work with Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council to consider the most appropriate public transport arrangements for this part of the region, together with the development of an agreement on how they might be funded. Recommendation: Add new policy 2.9: Investigate inter-regional services; and action: Work with Waikato Regional Council to investigate provision of services to connect external 67

areas adjacent to regional boundaries (e.g. Tuakau) with their nearest public transport interchange and to determine appropriate funding arrangements

Service quality policies (Section 6.3)

Service reliability As noted above, several submitters have highlighted service reliability as a major issue with the new network structure. This includes the need for actions to ensure that timetables are maintained. Submitters pointed to the delays that buses can experience in congested traffic, and the need for measures to address this and avoid platooning of buses. Discussion: Officers acknowledge the importance of reliable connections and minimal waiting times. The frequencies in the RPTP are minimums and in many cases a higher level of service will be provided which will contribute to lower waiting times. AT and operators will monitor actual travel times using GPS real time tracking and performance measurement systems and modify timetables as required to provide customers with a high standard of service reliability. Changes proposed to Policy 2.3 seek to minimise waiting times at interchange locations. Platooning buses is an operational issue that is addressed by pg 30 policy 3.1 actions a) and b) which directs use of real-time data and careful timetabling to ensure reliable services to customers. To support this, reference to headway timetabling in action c) is suggested. Recommendation: Policy 3.1 revise action c) as follows: "Provide priority, and where appropriate specific measures such as headway timetabling, to increase service reliability and reduce travel times, particularly on parts of the network that have high frequency services"

Travel speed and priority measures Submitters offered a number of suggestions to improve public transport travel speeds, including a more aggressive policy on bus priorities, bus priority signage, station and stop rationalisation, and more express services. Discussion: It is agreed that speed is important, particularly on the frequent service network. Stop rationalisation is one less intrusive method of achieving this, together with signal prioritisation. There is no plan at present to provide express rail services or to consolidate stations. Station spacing and operational constraints mean that running express rail services on the Auckland network is unlikely to be a viable solution. Recommendation: Additional action e.) in policy 3.2 (page 31) worded as: "Consider specific measures to improve the speed of services, such as stop rationalisation or bus priority signage, where appropriate"

68

Customer service and driver training Submissions identified the need for driver training to be agency endorsed (RNZFB, 546), and to include issues relating to safety, including that of cyclists and the disabled. Waterfront Auckland (879) proposed that training should be mandatory. Discussion: There are many policies that ensure appropriate driver training in the draft Plan. Policy 3.3 action f) (page 31) guides working with operators to ensure training to ensure safety of the public, but inclusion of wording to specifically include cyclists in bus lanes would be useful.

Staff training is to be specified as a condition of contract, but the current wording of Policy 3.3 (f) does not place consistent obligations on operators. While disability awareness training is a requirement, the current approach to safety awareness refers to encouragement. This should be strengthened, and encompass all staff, not just those in contact with the public e.g. maintenance staff. Recommendation: Amend Policy 3.3 action f) 2nd bullet point to read: "Require operators to ensure that training and performance includes the safety of the public, both on and off the vehicle, including the safety of cyclists in bus lanes" Include safety under Policy 3.3 action c as follows: Work in partnership with operators to continually improve reliability, punctuality, safety and all aspects of customer service

Vehicle standards A range of comments were received on vehicle quality standards. Some submitters sought additional features (notably CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency standards), and alignment with the Auckland Plan CO2 emission targets (e.g. Waitemata LB, 900). The BCA (518) and NZ Bus (536) were concerned that Policy 3.4 would enable AT to propose standards in addition to those outlined in the NZTA Requirements for Urban Buses, which would undermine the standardisation objective of that process, and add cost. In contrast, Ritchies submission (578) was in favour of specific additions for air conditioning, full accessibility and Euro 3 emissions standards. Some submitters favoured a shift to electric buses. Waterfront Auckland (879) suggested that the action on alternative fuel vehicles should not be limited to research, but also include implementation. EECA (537) proposed fleet performance reviews to identify opportunities for greater fuel efficiency. Discussion: The Draft RPTP will contribute to emissions reduction from two angles - new contracts that will speed up vehicle replacement and through mode shift. It would be appropriate to reference this against Auckland Plan targets in the text that describes Objective 3. NZTA Requirements for Urban Buses requires all vehicles to be to Euro 2 standard, or better. Auckland Transport aspires to have Euro 3 minimum as well as Super Low Floors 69

(SLF) on all vehicles and all new vehicles having Air Conditioning. Analysis of the data provided by operators to AT suggests that all non-SLF vehicles are powered by either preEuro or Euro 1 engines which will be retired under the Euro-2 requirement. AT is therefore reconsidering the cost/benefit of requiring the additional step of Euro-3.

Recommendation: Add the following to the text on P30 that discuss vehicle emission standards. Through achieving patronage growth (via mode shift), investment in electric trains and via a reduction in the average age of the bus fleet, Auckland Transport will contribute significantly to Auckland Plan targets to reduce transport related CO2 emissions.

Bikes on buses A number of submitters identified the need to better integrate cycling and public transport, including making provision for carrying bikes on buses. Discussion: Bicycles can be carried on trains and most ferries but the primary function of public transport is to transport people. Space allocated for cycle carriage reduces the number of passengers that can be accommodated and may be an issue on busy peak trips. The space may also be required for passengers using wheelchairs. Many stations and interchanges already provide secure storage. The viability of carrying bikes on buses in some form is currently under investigation. Auckland Transport is working with Cycle Action Auckland and other key stakeholders to arrive at the most appropriate answer. Recommendation: Include action to investigate methods to enable cyclists to use the public transport system.

Smaller buses A number of submissions (including from some local boards) sought greater use of smaller buses, particularly on local feeder routes where the road may not be suitable for larger buses, or demand is not high. Discussion: Policy 3.4 action e) already includes the specification of vehicle size to match local route geography and loadings. Recommendation: No change.

Monitoring Submissions were generally in favour of the proposals to monitor service delivery in Policy 3.6, although it was noted that there is no specific provision for the handling of complaints in action h). NZ Bus (536) raised concerns at some of the monitoring information specified in the Draft, including the lack of detail in 3.6 action (g). The submission highlighted the need for AT to be clear on the purpose of requesting information. 70

Discussion: Section 3.6 covers a range of reporting areas that need to be assessed to ensure that there is transparency and accountability of reporting against expected standards. Some of this reporting is required by NZTA; some by AT to help planning or contract management; and some would be of use to operators to allow for continuous improvement. The aim of 3.6g is as a catch-all, but would include performance on issues such as - RAPID registration rates, accidents and NZTA Operator Safety Rating grades. Recommendation: no change

Fares and ticketing policies (Section 6.4)

Most submissions received on the fares and ticketing policies in the Draft RPTP were in support of the overall approach, and highlighted the need for the fares and ticketing system to be simpler and better integrated. However, some specific concerns were identified.

Zone fare structure The proposed move to a zonal fare system is generally supported by submitters, on the basis that it is a much simpler approach and will provide a better fit with the integrated network. Despite this overall support, the submissions revealed a widespread concern that the proposed zone boundaries identified in Figure 6-1 of the Draft RPTP are inequitable. In particular, submitters considered that the 2 zone trip from the North Shore to the CBD was unfair when compared to the trip from West and South Auckland (3 zones). A number suggested splitting the North Shore into two zones, at Constellation Drive. There was also some support for splitting the South into two zones at Manukau City. A significant number of submissions also raised concerns about the cost implications for short trips across zone boundaries. Although the fare levels are not discussed in the Draft RPTP, submitters noted that with a relatively small number of zones, the lack of fidelity of the zone boundaries would mean that the incremental cost of travel into a new zone is likely to be more significant than under the existing stage system. This may be mitigated to some extent by the splitting of zones in the North and South as suggested above. Other suggestions from submitters included larger buffer zones to enable short trips across zone boundaries; or reverting to a distance-based fare system. Several submissions objected to the exclusion of ferry fares from the zone structure. Submitters noted that the fares on ferry services were much more expensive than for equivalent bus or rail journeys, and that this did not sit well with the concept of an integrated network. Discussion: The points raised in submissions are valid, and highlight the need for the implementation of the new fare system to be carefully analysed before any final decisions are made. The zone structure reflected previous ARTA policy, and was intended to simplify 71

fares in Auckland. However, it has raised legitimate equity concerns, and may result in large increments for cross-boundary travel. To address these concerns, Auckland Transport is currently undertaking a modelling exercise to determine the likely revenue and patronage impacts of the proposed zone structure and other options, including those raised by submitters. Until the results of this analysis are known and decisions taken, it is premature for the RPTP to include a specific proposal for zone boundaries. Accordingly, it is proposed to remove the zone map in Figure 6-1 until further analysis and targeted consultation is completed. At that stage, a variation to the RPTP could be undertaken. Ferry fares should be included in the analysis. Distance based fares have been considered previously, but tend to be complex in structure and are generally less transparent and simple than zonal alternatives. Recommendations: Withdraw the zone Map in Figure 6-1 and amend the text and policies relating to fare zones to provide for implementation of an agreed zone structure following further analysis and consultation, with the results to be incorporated into the RPTP through a variation. Include an assessment of ferry fares as part of this analysis

Fare products A number of submitters expressed concerns about the loss of existing fare products, although these concerns appear to have been offset by others who were supportive of the greater simplicity that this enables. Some (e.g. R Coup, 415) suggested that the product simplification should go further, with removal of monthly passes (and their replacement with a monthly fare cap). The provision of fare products and incentives to encourage off peak travel (especially for visitors), and to enable family travel, especially at weekends, was raised by some submitters. Overseas examples of low priced family travel were cited, and the option of free child travel with an accompanying HOP card user was raised (MRCagney, 469). Discussion: The phasing out of fare products is necessary to simplify the fare system, an objective that has been broadly supported by submitters. It is anticipated that, over time, the more flexible HOP stored value product will predominate (especially if the incentives for use of stored value are increased, as discussed below). However, the use of specific products to encourage off-peak use should be investigated, especially where this will help to stimulate additional patronage without increasing operating costs. Recommendation: Add an action to investigate replacing monthly passes with a monthly fare cap; investigate off-peak daily and weekly travel pass options to encourage off-peak travel by residents and visitors; and providing fare incentives for off-peak family travel

72

Fare levels and farebox recovery The level of fares was a concern to some submitters. A number noted concern that adherence to the farebox recovery policy could result in fare increases of more than the rate of inflation, with negative implications for patronage growth. Others felt that AT should focus its efforts to achieve farebox recovery targets on patronage increases and cost savings, rather than fare increases. The BCA (518) submitted that the wording of Policy 4.5 action b in the draft RPTP unnecessarily confuses what should be a simple action which is well defined in Appendix 4. The BCA suggests that the action be reworded to refer to the formula set out in Appendix 4. Discussion: The farebox recovery policy has been designed to ensure that farebox revenue will meet a reasonable proportion of operating costs and that AT will contribute to the achievement of the NZTA 50% national farebox recovery target. The network changes have been designed to use the same level of resources as at present, but more efficiently, to provide a more connected and improved network that will attract increased patronage. The intention is to grow revenue through increased patronage, rather than through fare increases, but the overall cost recovery of the system has to be managed in accordance with the farebox recovery targets. Operating cost and NZTA indexation information is used to establish the level of fare adjustment necessary to meet increased costs, and this should occur regularly; in addition to this, there needs to be an assessment of any additional adjustment that may be needed to meet the Farebox Recovery targets (which would also take account of movements in other factors that influence farebox recovery, such as patronage). The two processes are separate but could perhaps be seen as two steps in the same process. The action should be amended to provide greater clarity. Recommendation: Amend Policy 4.5, action b) to provide greater clarity of the process for fare adjustments and whether the regular cost-related adjustment and the annual review for Farebox Recovery should be combined

Incentives to use integrated tickets Several submitters identified the need to provide greater encouragement for use of HOP cards instead of cash, to speed boarding. Suggestions included a more aggressive approach to the HOP stored value discount, and removal of the 20% limit on this. NZ Bus (536) suggested an immediate increase in the cash premium to 20% with the implementation of AIFS. To encourage wider uptake of HOP cards, and improve the convenience for users, submitters also identified the need for a wider network of outlets to purchase and top up HOP cards (including on-line). Discussion: Faster boarding times could provide a significant benefit in overall journey times for passengers. Agree that maximum limit of stored value discount in Policy 4.6 b) is unnecessarily restrictive. Removal of the 20% ceiling differential is a sensible proposal that 73

would seem evident elsewhere as being a successful way to rapidly increase card uptake. To introduce an immediate increase in the cash fare premium following AIFS implementation is a risky strategy, when customers will just be getting used to major service changes. There are other policies and actions that could assist uptake which are lacking, such as, improving access to HOP in outlying areas etc. Due regard should be given to individual customers who cannot access or use a HOP card for some reason. Recommendations: Amend policy 4.6, action b) as follows: "Progressively increase the HOP card stored value discount (from 10 to up to 20 per cent) for travel through differential adjustments to cash and HOP card fares at the annual fare reviews, as appropriate." In addition, further policy should be introduced to clarify the status of the likely on-going use of cash fares (however small) and RPTP approach towards this reality. Add actions around improving access to HOP card to encourage widespread uptake.

Fare concessions A large number of submitters raised concerns about the potential for changes to concession fare arrangements. The Draft RPTP had foreshadowed a review of the current policy, with a particular focus on the availability of free travel for SuperGold card holders in the evening peak period, and eligibility and discount level for tertiary student concessions. A number of submissions advocated the retention of the current arrangements for senior citizens, including continued free travel during the PM peak (although there were some that favoured its removal, mainly on the basis of cost and the need to use peak capacity for paying customers). Supporters of the status quo submitted that removing free travel would remove opportunities for senior citizens to travel. Senior citizen groups have asked for a Mayoral policy directive on the issue. Submitters were generally supportive of retaining the tertiary concession, noting that students are an important growth market for public transport. Some submitters requested an extension of concessions to beneficiaries or community services card holders. Discussion: The free off-peak travel for Super Gold card passengers was a central Government initiative that enables free travel outside the peak periods, with the fares reimbursed to operators by government through NZTA. In Auckland, this free travel is also available during the evening peak period. Policy 4.7 proposes a review of all concession levels and eligibility criteria, and a review of the Auckland Supergold arrangements will be undertaken as part of this process. It is important to note that the policy does not advocate for removal of this arrangement - it is signalling a review. The comments received as part of the RPTP process will be taken into account as part of that review. Recommendation:

74

Take submitters comments on concession fares into account as part of the review of concession fares.

Off-peak pricing Some submitters favoured a stronger focus on the encouragement of off-peak patronage through pricing mechanisms. For example, the Campaign for Better Transport (514) suggested more attractive pricing for group travel during off-peak periods. Discussion: The submissions make a valid point about the potential for off-peak discounts to increase patronage in the new network structure, which offers significantly greater inter-peak travel opportunities. This is an additional point to existing policy focus on potential of offpeak discounts to improve operational efficiency, reduce costs to operators and improve the efficiency of PTOM contracts. Recommendations: Refine wording of Policy 4.8: "Provide off-peak discounts to spread peak demand, increase overall system patronage, and if these improve operational efficiency" Replace current Action a. with "Periodically review options for off-peak fare discounts, if necessary, to spread peak demand, make better use of resources, and reduce costs Actively investigate and implement off-peak fare discount options to spread peak demand and encourage off-peak trip making, whilst maintaining Auckland Transport's overall cost recovery targets."

Infrastructure policies (Section 6.5)

A number of submitters highlighted the importance of good infrastructure to the success of the integrated network, pointing out that interchanges need to be well located, comfortable and safe, to enable ease of transferring. A large number of submissions were received in relation to the integration of walking and cycling with public transport, and the need for this to be better integrated. This includes calls for improved cycle facilities at interchanges.

Integration of infrastructure and service provision MRCagney (469) suggested that Policy 5.1 should mention the need for level of service indicators that monitor speed/reliability on frequent bus routes. Traffic and Transportation Consultants (468) identified the need to mention the corridor management plan process as an important aspect of integrating public transport services with infrastructure development. The need for reference to safety in infrastructure development was also noted. Discussion: These points are useful additions to the actions in Policy 5.1. It is critical to ensure infrastructure provision follows where the real need to maintain levels of service is.

75

Recommendations: Suggested additional wording to Policy 5.1 action a) : "Develop an on-going programme of infrastructure improvements based on level of service indicators with and upgrades to improve journey times, reliability, safety, and the connection environment for the customer" Add an action to incorporate public transport service requirements and infrastructure requirements into corridor management plans

Interchanges Some submissions highlighted access difficulties in and around existing interchanges, and the need for these to be addressed to ensure smooth connections. A buses first approach would assist. The RNZFB (546) identified a number of matters that need to be taken into account in interchange and stop design to assist disabled passengers. Discussion: Action 5.2b refers to the development of guidelines for design and operation of new and upgraded transport interchanges. It is suggested that these guidelines should reinforce the need to be safe and comfortable for all users, and include the exclusion of other vehicles from bus operating areas within an interchange. This would enhance public safety. A "Buses first" approach is also supported (see Policy 5.4 below). The actions in Policy 7.2 already provide for input to the design of infrastructure on behalf of disabled passengers. Recommendations: Amend action 5.2b as follows: Develop guidelines for the design and operation of new and upgraded transport interchanges which are appropriate to their role in the network and the centres they serve, and ensure that existing and new interchanges are safe and comfortable for all users and that wherever feasible, other traffic is excluded. Add a new action to Policy 5.4: Promote a Buses First campaign that encourages motorists to give way to a bus leaving a stop

Customer facilities Submitters supported policies and actions relating to the provision of customer facilities. The Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board (889) highlighted a need for greater focus on safety and security at passenger facilities. The need for improved shelter was also identified. Other submitters identified the need for conveniently located ticket machines and off-bus ticketing, to support the increased uptake of AT HOP cards, and to speed boarding at busy stops. The BCA (518) raised concerns at the suggestion of access charges for PT facilities, and the potential for this to result in an inefficient money-go round. Discussion: The general text introducing section 6.5 notes that design needs to provide for safety and personal security at all stages of the journey, and Policy 5.2, action b requires the 76

preparation of design guidelines to ensure safety and comfort at interchanges. An explicit focus on amenity and shelter at stops and interchange facilities would also be appropriate. Consideration should be given to a more explicit statement about safety at stops and stations and while accessing them. The introduction of HOP is likely over time to largely reduce cash fare boardings, but never completely. While off-board ticketing machines at key stops are already part of the planned capital programme, the RPTP should recognise the potential issue of cash fare boardings resulting in significant delays and undermining level of service objectives. The current wording in the Draft RPTP is not clear as to whether access charges will fall on operators or the public using them or both. In some cases, such as Park & Ride the customer will pay. Exempt services may be required to pay an access charge to use an interchange or ferry wharf and a passenger charge will continue to be levied on ferry passengers towards wharf maintenance costs. This action should be clarified, preferably by deleting the reference to charges and adding a new action e) that is clear about any proposed charging framework Recommendations: Add a new action to policy 5.3: Ensure that infrastructure enhances customer safety and security by meeting or exceeding the safety requirements set out in design guidelines, as appropriate to the location. Add words to policy 5.3 action c) to: "Ensure that bus stops and interchange facilities focus on providing appropriate amenity and shelter, while maximising their attractiveness as a network access point from a customer perspective" Add new action to Policy 5.3 to investigate the requirement for off-board ticketing machines at high demand bus interchanges and stops. Amend policy 5.3, action a) by deleting the words "with appropriate access charges" and add a new action e) that clarifies the proposed charging regime

Bus priorities Submitters supported the policies and actions relating to bus priorities, to enhance service reliability. Specific proposals for additional priorities were identified, and R Rutherford (498) suggested stronger steps are needed to enable bus priority projects to progress. There was also support for a buses first campaign, to encourage drivers to give way to buses leaving stops. Discussion: Guidance already exists within Auckland Transports Code of Practice to guide bus priority requirements and triggers for intervention. When the final network structure is defined through consultation on local detail, a further programme of work will be triggered to define in more detail what infrastructure interventions will be required in different locations to deliver reliability. In some instances, this will be bus lanes, but a wider range of interventions will be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket infrastructure-led approach. A "Buses first" approach is supported. 77

Recommendation: Add a new action to Policy 5.4: Promote a Buses First campaign that encourages motorists to give way to a bus leaving a stop Park and ride Submitters were generally in favour of expanded park and ride facilities, particularly in outer areas, and a number identified locations where they considered park and ride should be provided or expanded. The importance of security at park and ride facilities was noted by some (e.g. Manurewa LB, 891). Some submitters noted a potential conflict between park and ride and interchange facilities. Traffic and Transportation Consultants (468) considered that the focus at key interchange locations should be on well designed and connected interchanges, and that park and ride should be a secondary consideration at these locations. The Auckland Council Transport Strategy Team (501) also highlighted the need to avoid undermining bus feeders, and to ensure that vehicles accessing park and ride facilities do not worsen congestion hot spots. Some concerns were raised over the potential pricing for park and ride facilities. Discussion: The park and ride investment criteria listed in Policy 5.5 deal with many of the matters raised by submitters. A number of potential sites have been identified for further investigation against these criteria. Some refinement of the criteria is proposed to address the points raised is proposed. The pricing of park and ride would potentially enable better management of their function within the PT system. Details of pricing, method and timing are yet to be established, however. Recommendation: Revise Policy 5.5 b) first and third bullets as follows: o "Park and Ride is planned as an integral part of the public transport network (including the essential function of bus feeders), extends the public transport customer base, and encourages public transport patronage" o "Park and Ride facilities are located such that they to relieve congestion by intercepting commuter traffic, and to ensure that vehicles accessing the facilities do not worsen local traffic congestion "

Integration of walking /cycling with public transport As noted above, a large number of submissions called for a better level of integration between walking and cycling and the public transport network. In particular, the need for improved access to public transport by cyclists was highlighted, with a number of submitters proposing policies to provide cycle storage facilities at all key interchanges, and for bikes to be carried on public transport vehicles. Submissions were also received in relation to improving the safety of cyclists in shared bus lanes (e.g. IPENZ, 528). 78

Discussion: Improving integration between cycling and particularly the frequent service network is a priority of the Plan, and improvements to the text in Chapter 5 have been proposed in the earlier discussion on that chapter. Policy 5.6 provides general policy direction for the integration of cycling and public transport, but rewording of the actions is suggested to provide better policy guidance and intent. Recommendation: Redraft Policy 5.6 actions to: a) Ensure integration between active modes and public transport services at both facility design and delivery stages, as appropriate. b) Include secure bicycle facilities at all interchanges, especially on the frequent service network, as appropriate c) Provide convenient connections and visible signage between public transport, and cycling and walking networks d) Work with public transport operators to improve on-vehicle facilities to improve the ease of passenger transfer between cycling and public transport services e) Ensure appropriate design solutions to reduce the conflict between cyclists and buses in shared bus lanes. These should consider in particular, network function, bus service frequency and the safety of cyclists. . Integration with parking Some submitters (e.g. NZ Bus, 536) have proposed a more explicit linkage in the RPTP between the new public transport network, fare structures and parking strategies, recognising the significant influence that parking accessibility and costs have on the use of public transport. Discussion: This is a valid submission point. The success of public transport services is intimately entwined with parking policies, and it is appropriate that this relationship is recognised in the RPTP. Recommendation: Insert a new policy: "Integrate public transport service, fare structures and parking strategies" with actions: a) Design parking and Park & Ride pricing policies in a manner that is supportive of public transport services, given prevailing PT fare strategies b) Review area parking strategies and pricing policies to effectively manage parking around transport interchanges and encourage usage of feeder bus services.

Customer interface policies (Section 6.6)

Customer feedback

79

Some submitters noted the lack of a clear method for AT to take customer feedback or complaints at present. They noted that complaints should be seen as market intelligence that leads to service improvement (e.g. L Middleton, 375). More transparent reporting of customer satisfaction was also requested. Others suggested that feedback from groups of people with disabilities should be sought from time to time, and that feedback and complaints processes need to be intentionally invitational by design, and include effective feedback loops. Discussion: Policy 6.1 states that AT will use customer feedback to continually enhance the product. This could be enhanced by a commitment to a clear process for dealing with customer complaints. Recommendation: Include an action for dealing with customer complaints in Policy 6.1

Branding Submissions noted the need for consistent branding of vehicles and infrastructure, and the policies and actions were generally supported. The RNZFB (546) noted that branding on fleet needs to be clearly recognisable to assist the vision impaired. Waterfront Auckland (879) suggested that the wayfinding system for both land use and public transport follows a consistent directional signage and branding to assist visitors to connect local destinations with PT services. Discussion: Provision could be made to reflect a local area identity within the framework of the overall AT branding, however this is strongly tempered with the desire to ensure consistent and simple branding of services commensurate with a new network of services that is as legible as possible to customers across the region. Policy 6.2, action d) already allows some variation in AT/operator co-branding. Recommendation: No change

Marketing Some suggestions were made by submitters to improve marketing efforts. These included a programme of business travel plans, which support businesses to encourage their employees to use public transport; and better publicity of the HOP card, especially for seniors. Discussion: AT has an on-going business travel plan programme and has worked with major firms that are relocating, and with groups of businesses (e.g. North Harbour Business Assn.) and with tertiary institutions e.g. Auckland University. This activity should be referenced as part of the RPTP to attract customers and as an important information channel. Recommendation:

80

Add a new action to Policy 6.3: "Promote and facilitate Business and School travel plans

Information While the policies and actions relating to information were generally supported, some submitters (e.g. RNZFB, 546) noted the need for better access to information for the vision impaired, and suggested that in principle, wherever electronic information is provided in print, it should also be provided simultaneously by way of audio announcements. Cycle Action Auckland (588) suggested better provision of education and information about transport modes and how to combine them. Discussion: Policy 6.4(b) notes that provision of information for the visually impaired will be continued at key sites and on key routes as appropriate. It is not possible, with available resources, to provide this across the entire network, but Auckland Transport will continue to work with TAAG to make specific improvements where this would bring significant benefits to visually impaired customers. A generic amendment to Policy 7.2 is proposed to address the specific needs of people with disabilities (see below). It is agreed that proving appropriate information to the public on integrated transport options is essential to increase uptake. Recommendation: Add new action to Policy 6.4 as follows: "Provide appropriate travel information to promote journeys that better integrate active modes and public transport"

High quality travel experience Some submissions included suggestions for improving traveller experience. NZTA (559) suggested driver training on the benefits of smooth acceleration and braking; and some local boards suggested that options for WiFi access on all public transport facilities be considered. Discussion: The suggestion relating to smooth acceleration and braking is supported. The potential for new and innovative technological solutions is recognised in Policy 6.4 (f), although the focus of that action is on customer information. This could be extended to include access to technology at PT facilities. Recommendation: Add a new action to Policy 6.6 that states "Ensure drivers are trained in the need for smooth acceleration and braking, which will have multiple benefits of: improving the comfort and safety of passengers, improving fuel consumption, and reducing vehicle emissions".

Assisting the transport disadvantaged policies (Section 6.7)

81

The policies and actions to assisting the transport disadvantaged are generally supported by submitters. For example, the Disability Strategic Advisory Group submission (882) was that this section reflects a brilliant stroke of insight as it summarises the key objectives that make up an accessible and inclusive transport system. The section is well thought through and little comment is warranted. The section makes reference to the assessment of transport disadvantaged in Appendix 5. There were few comments on this assessment, but the following points were made: Table A5.1, Children (particularly those under 5) are heavy consumers of health services: suggest that this column also receive an xx rating Table A 5:3 could be extended for tertiary students to include both ride sharing schemes and park and ride ARPHS welcomed the intention in Appendix 5 to develop a measure of public transport accessibility from areas of high concentrations of transport disadvantaged

Accessible network The Mangere-Otahuhu LB (889) submission called for the RPTP to better reflect how access to public transport for high deprivation communities is supported within south Auckland. It also asked how AT will respond to low income earners being supported or subsidised to better afford and access public transport to meet their needs. Submitters also highlighted the need for real time passenger information systems at bus stops and train stations to be clearly audible and easily read, by extending the routes where this information is available at the press of a button, and improving the accuracy of real time information. Discussion: Any additional concession fares or discount schemes for low income earners would require additional funding. It would be appropriate to consider this as part of the concession fares review in section 4.7, or alternatively add an action to Policy 4.7 such as: "Investigate, in conjunction with relevant government departments / crown agencies, the potential for introducing discounted travel schemes for Community Service Card holders." Policy 6.5 covers real time information but does not require provision of an audio channel. It is, however, available at many stops, and should be included in the action. Recommendations: Consider the options for concession fares or discount schemes for low income earners as part of the concession fares review in section 4.7 Amend Policy 7.1 action d) to read: Ensure that accessible information is widely available by using appropriate formats and media, both audio and visual.

Accessible interchanges The need for a focus on accessible interchange facilities was identified by a number of submitters. Auckland Disability Law (387) highlighted the need for additional consideration to 82

be given to the full accessible journey at all interchanges, noting that disabled people often find it difficult or impossible to access public transport independently because of difficulties getting to interchanges. It was also noted that disabilities are not solely related to mobility impairment; visual impairment is also a barrier. Other submissions called for a focus on access on and off vehicles, and the need for driver training to recognise passenger needs. Discussion: The policies and actions on access under Policy 7.2 can be improved by rewording the policies as suggested below. Consultation on these issues is not exclusive to TAAG, so this group should not be mentioned specifically in action c). The need for general disability awareness for all staff in contact with the public is recognised in Policy 7.2, action d) Work with operators to ensure that driver, staff, and crew training includes appropriate assistance for customers who have difficulty using public transport. The list does not cover other staff e.g. AT staff who manage or operate facilities e.g. at major station ticket and inquiry offices Recommendations: Reword Policy 7.2 actions as follows: a) Locate and design facilities to ensure easy and safe access for all customers to and around transport stops, stations and interchanges, with particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities b) retain c) "Investigate better design of infrastructure and vehicles to improve access and usability for the transport disadvantaged". d) Work with operators and AT facilities managers to ensure that training for drivers, crew and other staff in contact with the public, includes appropriate assistance for customers who have difficulty using public transport

School transport There was some concern (e.g. J Samuels, 15) about the need for school bus transfers, and potential safety issues for children at interchanges. The Ministry of Education (547) also identified the risk to students when entering or leaving school, and also raised the need to continue to work with Ministry to identify areas of duplication, where better co-ordination could be achieved. The BCA (518) requested a stronger commitment to providing school bus services to reduce the need for parents to drive their children, and thereby reduce traffic congestion. Discussion: The issues of safety for school children should be addressed as part of the infrastructure policies discussed above, but specific reference as part of Policy 7.3 is appropriate. Whilst the Draft RPTP notes that school buses in rural areas are provided by the Ministry of Education, it is silent on the mechanisms by which 'boundary issues' are resolved, and an additional action to work with the Ministry on these matters is proposed. It is intended that dedicated school buses will be continued, largely as at present. An extension to the existing policy on school services as suggested by the BCA is not 83

recommended as the resources needed to carry out this action would be significant, and the required funding may not be available. Adding new school bus services may be considered in the context of a service review where regular service reliability is affected by lack of capacity, such that a school bus is warranted. Recommendations: Add to action 7.3(b) or (e) page 43 that school bus planning will take into account, as far as is practicable, the need to ensure that where school bus services can be provided more efficiently by requiring transfers these will be at safe locations where supervision is available Add an additional action to Policy 7.3 that reads: "Work with Ministry of Education to periodically review any issues that arise on the urban/rural fringes of the Auckland region to ensure that effective and non-duplicative provision of bus services is achieved."

Concession fares for transport disadvantaged This issue has been discussed in detail as part of section 6.4 above. However, NZTA (559) has noted its strong objection to the wording of action 7.4(b), as it is not consistent with national policy direction. NZTA has already advised that funding for senior citizens free evening peak travel is at risk; and the wording conflicts with the wording in policy 4.7 (c), and the narrative in section 6.4 on page 35. Discussion: The commitment to review the senior citizen concession arrangements is reiterated in the discussion on Policy 4.7. It is suggested that the policies and actions in this section are aligned with section 4.7. Recommendation Align the policies and actions in this section with section 4.7.

Procurement and commercial services policies (Section 6.8)

There was a strong level of support for the PTOM approach from submitters, who identified the potential for this to deliver better value for money. Public transport operators reiterated their support for the PTOM framework, but did identify some specific issues with the policy and actions in section 6.8, as discussed below. Legislative issues and PTOM contracts Submissions from bus operators requested that the Draft RPTP be amended to more fully incorporate the changes proposed in the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill (LTMA Bill), especially in relation to policies related to the determination of units, and the need to identify the services that will make up like for like units. They have proposed that the RPTP be strengthened to fully comply with the provisions of the LTMA Bill. The Auckland Council Transport Strategy Team (501) suggested that the RPTP be futureproofed to avoid the need for further changes to be made once the new legislation is in place. 84

Discussion: The response to these submissions needs to take account of the discussion and recommendations on the timing of the review in relation to the LTMA Bill, at the start of Part 3 of this report. This concluded that the Draft RPTP should be amended to clarify that the RPTP has been prepared under the PTMA, but future-proofed for the currently proposed LTMA Bill. It is also proposed to clarify the situation in relation to exempt services, and to refer to these only within the context of the LTMA Bill. Recommendations: Include text to explain that the RPTP has been prepared under the PTMA, but is future proofed for the currently proposed LTMA Bill. Include text to clarify the relationship between PTOM implementation and enactment of the LTMA Bill, stating that enactment of the Bill is not a requirement for PTOM implementation. Amend text to use terminology from the PTMA rather than the LTMA Bill. In particular, where the current draft RPTP references 'exempt' services it should state that under the PTMA these will remain commercial services, and that these would transition to exempt services under the LTMA Bill as currently drafted. Revise section 6.8 accordingly (particularly policies 8.3 and 8.7)

Partnership approach The BCA (518) opposes Policy 8.4 (d) which provides for re-tendering of units affected by a network change where agreement cannot be reached with all affected operators. A mediation or arbitration process is proposed as an alternative. Operators also objected to the Policy 8.4 (h) requirement to provide information on service inputs and cost efficiency, on the grounds that this goes well beyond the agreements made by PTOM parties. Discussion: The concerns raised in relation to re-tendering are valid. It was not the intention during drafting of the document for re-tendering of units to be considered at any stage that was not a last resort. The insertion of a mediation phase is entirely appropriate. It is suggested that further consideration is given as to whether the information on service inputs and cost efficiency is a valid requirement and that this is discussed with operators. An undertaking on data confidentiality may also be worth including. Recommendations: Amend Policy 8.4 (d), bullet 3 to read: "If all operators of affected PTOM units cannot agree a negotiated solution, following mediation or 3rd party involvement, Auckland Transport reserves the right to tender the affected PTOM units."

85

Give further consideration to information requirements and confidentiality in consultation with operators.

Funding and prioritisation policies (Section 6.9)

Farebox recovery Most of the submitter feedback on this section of the Draft RPTP related to the farebox recovery policy. This has already been discussed as part of the response to submissions on the fares and ticketing policies in section 6.4 above. The recommendations from that discussion may require some consequential changes to section 6.9. The Auckland Council Transport Strategy Team (501) noted some inconsistency in how the farebox recovery targets are referenced in the Draft RPTP, and recommended use of the term approximately 50% in relation to the overall target. Some submitters queried the higher farebox recovery target for ferry services, and noted that the calculation includes some, but not all, commercial ferry services. NZTA (559) noted that in future, the fare revenue from commercial services which are exempt under the LTMA Bill will not be included in the Farebox recovery ratio, and that the targets should be adjusted downwards accordingly. This may require a footnote. Discussion: The response to the calculation of ferry farebox recovery needs to take account of decisions relating to exempt services, as outlined above. However, a footnote in the RPTP to identify this issue would be appropriate. Recommendations: Add a footnote to note that ferry FRR will be reviewed pending the final determination of exempt services once the LTMA Bill is enacted. Revise text to be consistent with decisions on section 6.4 Refer to approximately 50% as the overall FRR target

Monitoring and review policies (Section 6.10)

The monitoring policies were generally supported by submitters. Some made specific suggestions for additions or deletions, as follows; Include information on how performance results will be made public (A Weller, 275) Include indicator of number of jobs located within x metres of a frequent service (A Upton, 400) Include measure of timeliness of services at interconnection points (ARPHS, 522) Clarify what is meant by reliability and on time (ARPHS, 522)

Discussion: These suggestions have merit, and Policy 10.1 should be amended accordingly. 86

Recommendation: Amend Policy 10.1 to incorporate submitter suggestions listed above.

Chapter 7: Description of services

A large number of submissions referred to specific services or locations. Some of these were used to illustrate concerns with the overall network concept (as discussed above in Chapter 5); but most submissions of this nature related to requests for the future system to retain, add or amend specific services. Some inconsistencies were identified between the listings in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 and the detail in Appendix 1. Discussion: Subject to approval of the overall network concept, it is intended to address these service-specific suggestions as part of the detailed implementation of the new services, which will be undertaken in stages. Submitters will be contacted as part of the local consultation processes for this implementation, which will enable the points raised to be considered in more detail. The timetable for this local consultation is as follows: South Auckland: first half of 2013 North Shore: latter part of 2013 Isthmus, West and East Auckland: 2014

In view of the comments relating to exempt services earlier in this report, some amendments to the references to these services in Chapter 7 and Appendix 1 will be required. Recommendations: Address submissions on specific services as part of the local consultation process Amend text in Chapter 7 and Appendix 1 to align with decisions on exempt services

Chapter 8: Implementation Plan

Submitters generally supported the staged implementation proposed in Chapter 8, although some wanted to see implementation of the new network accelerated. A large number of submitters, particularly those that had made specific service suggestions, have asked to be contacted as part of the local consultation processes. NZTA (559) suggested greater clarity in the text to reflect the fact that although the PTOM units will be bought in via 3 geographically based tranches, the ticketing, fares and zones will all bought in at once covering the whole of Auckland, and these aspects will be done in advance of some of the new PTOM units. NZ Bus (536) noted that the timeframe shown for integrated fares appears to follow the network changes.

87

A number of submitters called for greater detail in the future implementation programmes shown in Tables 8-1 and 8-2. Discussion: The submission points should be addressed by re-casting Table 8-2 in the Final RPTP to reflect the clarity sought. Recommendation: Recast Table 8-2 to provide greater clarity on the timing of key actions, and the relationship between network implementation and other initiatives.

88