Sunday, November 4, 2012

Submission to the draft 2012 Auckland Public Transport Plan

Auckland Transport is inviting submissions to its draft plan for Auckland's public transport for the next 10 years. A PDF of the draft is here. You have until 5 November at 4:00pm to send in your submissions.
And here is mine:

SUBMISSION TO THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT PLAN 2012

I wish to make this submission to the draft Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan as a resident of Waiheke Island who has had 12 years' experience of daily commuting to the city on Fullers Ferries, using the bus services on the mainland and on the island. As an Auckland ratepayer I contribute to the subsidies doled out to the various current public transport operators under the PTMA/PTOM scheme.
I have been a member of “Fullerswatch”, a public watchdog covering public transport and monopoly issues on the Hauraki Gulf and will use its past research and postings to illustrate issues in this submission. But overall this submission is my personal opinion.

ISSUE 1: WAIHEKE ISLAND'S CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT PLIGHT

Waiheke Island is unique in Auckland's transport system in that it is served by two private monopoly providers, Fullers Ferries and Sea Link. Both companies are the lifelines for the island's well-being and economic development, including a valuable source of rates revenue for Auckland Council.

Waiheke is a nationally important tourist destination for Aucklanders, New Zealanders and many international visitors. Those two companies allow islanders to live locally and commute to town for work and play. Many Aucklanders come to Waiheke for day trips, weekends and summer holidays.
In all, about 1,000 commuters a day are kept off Auckland roads by being able to commute by ferry.

The island bus service, owned and operated by Fullers, is a feeder service for its ferries, but doesn't really function well as a convenient local public transport service for islanders. It gets subsidised by Auckland Transport, while the ferry route is a fully commercial, unsubsidised and "exempted service”.

Fullers Ferries (and Sea Link) isn't really a public transport company. It is a private transport provider mainly aimed at tourists. Its commuter service is incidental, although highly valuable in the off-season for Fullers’ cash flow. But it is not its priority service as vessels get taken out of commuter service when they are hired by private functions and groups.

Fullers’ monopoly on the Hauraki Gulf has been long established after it saw off its last competition late last century. The company has enjoyed this happy position for over a decade, unchallenged by any viable competition or regulatory intervention in fares and service delivery. It also enjoys priority berthing rights at the Downtown Ferry Terminal.

The outlook for the next ten years for the Waiheke ferry service is grim. The Draft Plan envisages a "doubling of passenger numbers" but, as far as I know, there are no plans by Fullers to invest in any new low emissions vessels, despite the "youngest" boat being 16 years old. I would love to know what the Fullers’ reaction is to the draft Plan’s "Ferry Standard for New Ferries used in Urban Passenger Service for modern, low emission ferries, and will ensure that vessels used on future contracts for ferry services conform with this standard". (My guess: a snigger)

The current fleet will still be ageing, suffer even more regular breakdowns, mishaps and fires than we have been experiencing lately. Vessel survey periods will become lengthier, causing smaller replacement service vessels to be continually overcrowded.
The only thing we can be certain of is that fares will rise, no matter what happens to economic conditions, fuel prices, labour and other operating costs.
We can look forward in the coming 10 years to monthly pass fares in the $600+ range, extrapolating from the 75% rise over the past 12 years (from $199 in 2000 to $355 in 2012).

ISSUE 2: "EXEMPTED SERVICES"

Nowhere in the Draft Plan is this concept rationalised. Why are these services exempted? Who decreed this and on which economic or social advantageous grounds? What purpose do they serve being outside the Auckland Transport public transport remit? Why will they remain exempt in the next 10 or 20 years from the integrated system envisaged by the Plan? Why do you think it is rational to keep their fares systems in place when the general desire is to have integrated fares and transport modes?

This exempted services concept needs to be abolished. There is no rational, nor economic reason to maintain balkanised public transport services across Auckland with separate and mutually incompatible fare structures.
London's Oyster and Hong Kong's Octopus cards, on which Hop mirrors itself, offer passengers travel across all transport modes: underground, buses, trams and ferries. There are no sane reasons why the Auckland Hop card should not offer this same interoperability across transport modes in Auckland: buses, trains, all ferries and Airport bus. Not having this integration has a baffling effect on the tourist arriving at Auckland Airport, who is faced with an Airport bus to downtown and to Manukau. One of which he can buy a Hop card for, enabling him to use it later during his visit on other buses and trains. If he wants to visit Waiheke, there is another separate fare to be paid to Fullers - and if he's lucky, his Hop card may be acceptable on the Waiheke Bus (since that is an AT subsidised service and thus not "exempt").

In this RPT Plan there is no mention of how the damning comments in international guides such as Lonely Planet on the poor state of PT in Auckland is going to be tackled. Certainly not by maintaining the exempt service status of the first two transport modes an international tourist comes face to face with after a long haul flight. Crucially, this same problem, of course, confronts Waiheke Islanders, Aucklanders and New Zealanders as well. Why set up a whole infrastructure of integrated fares and transport modes while at the same time exempting pretty important parts of it? Why keep on this confusion and inconvenience for seasoned and one-off travellers alike?

Exempt status means the companies can set fares, timetables and conditions at will.

This is unacceptable.

Sailings get delayed, cancelled or have to return to base due to technical failure on a regular basis with few apologies and little compensation for missed connections, flights or appointments. There are no commercial consequences for the company so it has no incentive to improve its service delivery.

Fullers has basically proven itself to be incapable of providing a quality service in terms of punctuality, reliability and passenger comfort, at a reasonable fare for the past 12 years, ever since the competition on the run was seen off in the last century. It acts as a typical monopolistic private provider only interested in its bottom line and adopting a cost-plus-plus mentality in its fare policy. Fare box recovery is already 102% on the Waiheke route: we pay a full unsubsidised fare plus wharf tax (i.e. fares could be halved and still meet your 50% target?).

This has resulted in Fullers commuter fares consistently being the highest in the world among commuter ferry operators, and fares over the past 12 years have risen higher than the CPI inflation figure - which includes business cost price factors like fuel and labour - would justify.
You only need to compare this price evolution to the commercial domestic aviation market: 10 years ago a flight from Auckland to Wellington cost the equivalent of a Fullers Waiheke monthly pass. Now airfares are the equivalent of one return ticket. There is never any chance of $7 Air New Zealand promotional fares - let alone current 1c JetStar offers on the Hauraki Gulf.

Auckland Transport should monitor service delivery for operators outside contracted services as well as all other PT providers.

ISSUE 3: PTOM

Fullers (and Sea Link) must be brought under this regime with the abolition of the "exempted service" category as soon as possible and certainly by the time all public transport in Auckland is regulated, planned and implemented under one umbrella, zone- and fares-wise.

I have no illusions that the ferry companies will fight – as a Flemish proverb has it “like the Devil in a bath tub of Holy Water” – this inclusion from ever happening. But that doesn’t mean you, as the public transport regulator, cannot do that. The Plan PTOM definition states: "Grow confidence that services are priced efficiently and that competitors have access to public transport markets".

This should mean that Auckland Transport should ensure a level playing field on Hauraki Gulf and adopt as its main task being a PT regulator and monopoly buster – something which has been sorely lacking in the past.

ISSUE 4: SUPER GOLDCARD

An overhaul of the Super Gold Card system is needed, especially by linking card IDs with public transport tickets issued to prevent opportunities for fraud by operating companies and to protect the taxpayer.
The Super Gold Card must be replaced by Hop card allowing discounts/free travel in predetermined time periods. This would allow for proper surveillance and audit.

ISSUE 5: FARES AND ZONES INTEGRATION TO INCLUDE WAIHEKE ISLAND

The Waiheke ferry service should be included on equitable basis in any fare structures and zone geography that are proposed. Octopus card in Hong Kong includes the Airport service, underground, bus, trams and ferries. Hop card should mirror this integration. Fullers Waiheke must be brought into this system with stored value discounts, monthly passes and daily caps.
All ferry services need to be integrated in the zone system, not point to point (Point 4.3.c. (p36)).
Regards Figure 6-1 (fare zone boundaries): Waiheke should be 4 zones from the CBD, like Manurewa and Papakura are, as they are a similar distance away.
Pine Harbour ferry is same distance too from CBD and there is no rational reason not to have a similar fare structure for Waiheke ferry (in comparison, currently a 40-ride ticket is $355 on Pine Harbour and $469 on Fullers)

ISSUE 6: INFRASTRUCTURE

Abolish the wharf tax.
Waihekeans in effect pay, due to their sheer numbers using the wharves, for the investment and maintenance of all other wharves in the region, but we don't get to own them despite our investment. Bus users don't pay a separate "bus shelter tax", nor train passengers a "station tax", thus ferry passengers should not be charged a wharf tax.

END NOTES

Waiheke Islanders are a feisty and hardy lot, and a politically active and aware community. We care about our island, its future and its environment, social conditions and well-being for our diverse inhabitants, most of whom are not well-off.
While we are not always happy campers within the Auckland City set up, we have a legitimate grievance against what we perceive as inaction and neglect of our transport links within AT’s regulatory framework. We want this remedied within the Draft Plan. The ability to travel by islanders and visitors alike must be seamless and on an equal footing with other areas in the city.

10 comments:

Albert Howard said...

Another point about the wharf tax is that we are levied a per trip tax at the same rate as all others for crossing the wharf at Auckland and the again a extra tax is levied for the Waiheke wharf. In the case of the other services served from downtown the per trip tax covers the crossing of two wharves per trip whereas we pay twice per trip. I put this to ARTA when they started this regime and it was acknowldged Waiheke was being overcharged but they saw no reason to change the system. I can only suspect that this carries on to this day. If this is so it is not just the ferry companies using monopolistic measures.

steven kidman said...

Government allow to private parking places to submission to the draft Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan as a resident of Waiheke Island. they are too good good in providing parking services like wash and clean, valet you directly to the cruise terminal in the comfort of your own car and handle your luggage in NY Ship Terminal.

kitchen renovation said...

This is a very informative topic about transpotation. Thanks for posting this and let us readers be aware of it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sharne Bond said...

Your blog have a lot of information about transportation. It is a great opportunity for comfortable travel. This is a very informative topic about transportation. Thanks for posting this and let us readers be aware of it.

Lee John said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lee John said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lee John said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Freya George said...

Well your service functionality seems good. But do they have secure procedures like meet and greet parking Gatwick north

carlagrace said...

public transport plans are made on huge scale and usually their goal is quite high, hence the implementation takes some time as well as the results. Gatwick airport parking