Crowd = 200,000! Who's counting?

There's been a lot of guesstimating going on about exactly how many people descended on Auckland's waterfront that fateful Friday opening of the RWC when it all turned to custard and the blame game set in. There's been numbers up to 200,000 bandied about, almost as a justification of success. The independent report by lawyer Chris Moore appears to assume this guesstimate for his assessment. Garbage in - garbage out.... I did some basic work using the Council's GIS system to analyse the crowd carrying capacity of central Auckland waterfront spaces around Queens Wharf that did get crowded. You can see the area I looked at in these five graphics. Separate area calculations can easily be done using Council GIS tools. For example the total area of Queens Wharf - excluding the ferry terminal - is 25,500 square metres. I know not all of that area can be used to hold people, but the lion's share of it can, some in Shed 10, the Cloud and other open areas. And it's fenced to the waterfront edge so you can cram them in a bit - without worrying about someone falling into the water.

That Friday, the biggest squeeze as far as I understand was on Quay Street. People on Queens Wharf were restricted, but they were not on Quay Street. On this map here's a big chunk of Quay Street that was set aside for pedestrians. The total area of this chunk is 16,600 square metres. On that Friday it was more crowded than Queens Wharf. Sure. But not over the whole area, and it's quite a lot smaller in size, and it didn't have fences to stop people falling into the water...

I've added in here the bit of Wharf that sticks out into the Viaduct - not all the way into Te Whero and I know that would add some more. But I didn't have all day. This bit of the Viaduct adds 7,200 square metres of crowd handling capacity. I also added in the whole of QE II Square outside Britomart. Not really fair - because that part outside the shops wasn't that popular with people. But I've added it all in. That adds a further 6,600 square metres of crowd handling capacity.

Princes Wharf is a joke when it comes to public space as we all know. And it's going to become an even worse joke if the council has it's way and flogs off the bit of it that does serve the cruise ship industry (See NZ Herald Business Section again Tuesday). Anyway the little bit of edge that is available for public use amounts to another 6,500 square metres of public space. Again - no fence to stop people falling into the water - so people keep back from the edge and don't get closely crowded. (By the way, a mate of mine who had the sense to go there to watch the fireworks said it was easy-peasy - hardly anyone there - and after the fireworks he walked easily down to the end of the wharf, across Quay Street, up Albert Street, left into Custom House Quay (which was almost empty he told me - no crowds in that part of town), and got home quick. So he by-passed the crowds in the central parts of Quay Street where people had gathered to watch the fireworks.)

This brings me to Captain Cook Wharf. It wasn't available that Friday, so couldn't be used, but I have it here for interest. The area of it - plus a bit of the waterfront that Port uses - you can see on this map - has a total area of 20,800 square metres. Ok. Back to Friday. If you add up these waterfront areas - excluding Captain Cook - you get a total of 62,400 square metres of public waterfront space. If you assume that the 12,000 maximum figure used for Queens Wharf is a "safe waterfront crowd" density, then assuming that was applied across all of the available waterfront space that Friday night, you would actually be able to accommodate a maximum of 29,400 people on Auckland's waterfront. Less than 30,000. A bit different from the figures being bandied about. But I know that parts of Quay Street got a lot more crowded than Queens Wharf. So I did a bit more reading. There's all sorts of interesting stuff on the Internet about crowd safety. ...At occupancies of about 7 persons per square meter the crowd becomes almost a fluid mass. Shock waves can be propagated through the mass sufficient to lift people off of their feet and propel them distances of 3 m (10 ft) or more. People may be literally lifted out of their shoes, and have clothing torn off. Intense crowd pressures, exacerbated by anxiety, make it difficult to breathe. The heat and thermal insulation of surrounding bodies cause some to be weakened and faint. Access to those who fall is impossible. Removal of those in distress can only be accomplished by lifting them up and passing them overhead to the exterior of the crowd.... Don't think we had anything like that - though at various pinch points - and we are quite good at pinch points - like at the ends of the big screen in Quay Street - there was a pretty tight squeeze. And particularly within 100 metres of the entrance to Queens Wharf. It was the crowd density around the Queens Wharf entrance that forced the closures of Britomart Station and the Ferry Terminal because people couldn't get in or out effectively because of the Queens Wharf/Fireworks queue. Reading on: "In the Guides the safety limit for crowd density is defined as 40 people in 10 square metres for a moving crowd and 47 for standing areas...." and "...Between 3 and 5 people per square metre are typical of the normal ingress density...." So let's look at that Friday again. My obervation of Friday was that Queens Wharf wasn't full. I was on it and I don't think it was full. The people counters didn't know what they were doing and they shut the gates early. I reckon there was 9,000 on Queens Wharf, but let's say - for the argument - there were 12,000 there. Princes Wharf was almost empty - but let's say it was equal to the allowable crowd density of Queens Wharf on average, and let's say the average crowd density of QE II Square and the Viaduct Wharf extension was that as well - basically because that's where people didn't really want to be. They were pushing into Quay Street to get to Queens Wharf, or to a place they could see the fireworks, or to where they could see a big screen that was working. That gives a total of 21,500 people everywhere on the Waterfront (the places I'm talking about here: Queens Wharf, Princes Wharf, Viaduct wharf extension, QE II Square) but excluding Quay Street. Assuming the whole of Quay Street was crowded on average at 4 people/square metre - which is the safety limit for a standing crowd - according to "the guidelines". At 4 people/square metre (maximum safe crowd), the whole of the Quay Street section shown in the maps above would have held 66,400 people. These numbers suggest the crowd on the waterfront spaces shown in these maps was 87,900 on Friday. However I think that is an over-estimate - because it wasn't that crowded over the whole length of Quay Street. The scrums were by the big screen and at the Queens Wharf entrance. More like 50,000 to 75,000 I would assess at the outside. Makes you think - doesn't it. Shows how little public space Auckland has in Auckland's CBD waterfront. Shows how valuable public space on the waterfront Queens Wharf really is. Puts it into proportion and into perspective.

Auckland Plan - Users Guide

The Auckland Council has published 4 plans and invites submissions from citizens. These must be in by October 25th. Through NZ Herald, Deputy Mayor Hulse worries there might be more than 3000 submissions and they might not be able to be heard. Apparently - in law - any citizen who wants to be heard can request to be heard, and Council must meet that need. Cllr Hulse is seeking advice about this.... it's a worry...


Unfortunately, the documents are massive.

The Draft Auckland Plan alone is 250 pages long.

The Draft Economic Development Strategy is over 100 pages.

The Draft City Centre Masterplan is around 200 pages.

The Draft Waterfront Plan is estimated to be around 300 pages.

That's around 800 pages total. I've looked briefly at the Auckland Plan and it's a dense read. You can get printed copies, and you can download files from the Council website. But as Brian Rudman reports today in his NZ Herald column, these files are huge and even caused his computer to hang.

So. It's a big ask. Rudman's advice is to download the questionnaires and enter your feedback into them. That's not a bad idea. You can meaningfully submit without reading 800 pages.

Click here to go to that webpage. It has links to the plans, and links to submission forms.

But you probably miss the real objectives behind these plans.

My two decades of experience of Auckland "Long Term Planning" suggests that it is not really about long term planning at all. It is really about short term projects and short term thinking. Auckland local government institutions - despite their history - have a remarkably short term focus. Apart from motorways. But then those were planned by Central Government's Ministry of Works years ago. Even the North Shore Busway was planned as mitigation for a motorway project, by Transit, the nation's motorway provider.

What happens in Auckland "long term planning" is that it all crystallises in those pages at the back where actual projects get listed. The ones at the top get built. The rest don't. It's pretty easy really.

Why do we think short term - especially in Auckland? I'd like to introduce some new thinking here. National cultures can be described according to the analysis of Geert Hofstede. These ideas were first based on a large research project into national culture differences across subsidiaries of a multinational corporation (IBM) in 64 countries. Studies identified and validated four independent dimensions of national culture differences, with a fifth dimension added later.

A good link about these ideas is here.

The cultural dimensions are:

• Power Distance
• Individualism
• Masculinity
• Uncertainty Avoidance
• Long-Term Orientation

I won't go into detail here, but just summarise the key cultural differences between New Zealand, Japan and Sweden. I should point out that these assessments are averages. They are not immutable. They change over time. They can be recognised and compensated for - in planning terms. But they shouldn't necessarily be given into. Especially if planners recognise the problem caused by doing as we have always done (A: You get what you've always got....).

So. Comparisons. See the table. Hofstede’s Power Distance Index measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. NZ's score indicates a low acceptance that power be distributed unequally. Which you'd expect.

Individualism is the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. NZ's score is high. Influenced by a mix of free market entrepreneurialism, and the happy anarchy that many NZers have.

Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less among societies than men’s values; (b) men’s values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women’s values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women’s values on the other. The assertive pole has been called ‘masculine’ and the modest, caring pole ‘feminine’. This is one of the interesting ones for NZ to look at - not so much the difference between NZ and Japan, but the difference between NZ and Sweden - one of the caring Nordic countries. Read in NZ planning - look out for male bullying.

Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man’s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’. Again, NZ is much less tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity than Sweden. Read: NZ unhappy with uncertainty in planning (though the process of planning is uncertain by its nature, though not of its findings in the end).

Long-Term Orientation is the fifth dimension of Hofstede which was added after the original four to try to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West. From the original IBM studies, this difference was something that could not be deduced. Therefore, Hofstede created a Chinese value survey which was distributed across 23 countries. From these results, and with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on the East, long term vs. short term orientation became the fifth cultural dimension.

Below are some characteristics of the two opposing sides of this dimension:

Long term orientation:
-persistence
-ordering relationships by status and observing this order
-thrift
-having a sense of shame

Short term orientation:
-personal steadiness and stability
-protecting your ‘face’
-respect or tradition
-reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts

While NZ scores on a par with Sweden, what makes this an interesting cultural aspect of NZ institutional behaviour, especially how local Government institutions behave, is its relationship with Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance.

Could it explain why Auckland Local Government is characterised by male bullying (high masculinity score), pet projects (reciprocation of favours and gifts), blaming others (protecting your 'face'), no genuine consultation (discomfort with uncertainty)? Food for thought.

Politicians and others with an inside track in this major Auckland Council planning exercise make sure their projects - their pet projects - are in there somewhere. Near the top preferably. Doesn't really matter about the long term vision. It will never happen. Just make sure my project happens.

My experience of Auckland local government politics reinforces this. Want to know what happens immediately after most council elections? Generally the mayor meets with councillors - one on one - and asks them, "what do you really want to deliver in the next three years. For your area. What project is really important to you...?"

And councillors, once they get over the realisation that this is how it's done, answer the question. The mayor makes a list. Knows what to do.

These projects have nothing to do with long term planning. They are usually ill-thought-out and populist. maybe you think I'm being a bit cynical. Long term planning is paralysis by analysis and we'll never build anything. Might as well build something.

That's how we get Cruise Ship terminals right to the end of Queens Wharf that will stuff the waterfront up for the public long term. It's how we get the crazy idea that Warkworth should be an intensively developed satellite town - part of the sustainable growth strategy. It's how we get a railway station at the least justified option at Parnell. It's how we get a ferry service to Takapuna.....

To name a few pet projects that have crept onto these 800 pages, and been prioristed, without adequate justification. Proper justification would demonstrate how those particular projects contribute to the delivery of long term goals AND demonstrate in a robust manner that of all other options that exist, the chosen project is the best use of public money.

I would like the submission process and timetable to be a time when people discover or uncover these pet projects lurking in the fine print of these glossy publications, and out them. So that they can be exposed and be subject to the submissions they deserve. Long term planning should not be manipulated by turning it into a vehicle to deliver pet projects and populist promises.

Come on Auckland Council. Look in the mirror and learn from past behaviour. Auckland neither wants nor needs an action reply of past planning practices.

Don't Blame Fullers!

Those who blame Fullers for queues and delays at each end of the Devonport/CBD ferry service during the big Rugby World Cup Party celebrations a couple of Fridays ago, make the same mistake as those who blame Veolia for what happened to the train services. As newspaper reports have gradually peeled layers off the onion of that rather public Auckland failure, it has become clear that while institutional eyes were firmly on the ball of a game of rugby at Eden Park, those same eyes were off the ball of a very large fireworks party on Auckland's waterfront.

Some say: "we were victims of our own success", others admit: "there was a collective failure of planning". And so many individuals claiming to have guessed the numbers of people who would flock to the waterfront, issuing email trails to the media, remembering who said what at meetings. As if it really matters....

It was a collective failure of planning, but it was also the predictable result of the failures that occur with peak travel demand. It's what almost happens every morning and every night on Auckland's motorway system. It gets almost grid-locked because its ability to cope with demand is almost at its peak.

When demand moves a bit past that peak - such as what happens to motorway systems out of Auckland - North and South - when there's a long weekend and the weather forecast is fantastic - then we see gridlock. Nobody goes anywhere for a long time.

At those times demand needs to be managed. And it's not by suddenly supplying a whole bunch of new motorway capacity.

Just as it's just not possible for Veolia or Fullers to suddenly build a whole lot of new trains and new stations to meet a sudden surge in demand. So don't blame them for not meeting the demand. Sure they can do a better job - provided they are paid to and it's part of the contract - in terms of putting guards in train carriages, and increasing service frequencies - subject to stations also coping with increased service loads, and subject to there being extra rolling or floating stock.

I well remember other times when Devonport Ferry service has been criticised. One time was a very popular Auckland Marathon event which started at Devonport's Windsor Park. Around 250 athletes didn't make the start because they were stranded in Auckland ferry terminal. Even though athletes had to register in advance, so numbers were known, organisers had failed to communicate this information to the ferry operators or to ARTA (who then funded Fullers to provide the service). At the time local voices criticised Fullers, but Fullers did their best on the morning.... It wasn't their fault...

Planning is everything when it comes to managing crowds at events.

200,000 people plus attend Christmas events and others of similar size on the Domain. They come from far and wide. But they come. Those events last a good long time. Some might have a fireworks display but it's just a part of a several hours of entertainment, and people come gradually, throughout the evening, and some go before the big bang. Still had a good time.

Those in charge of Rugby World Cup festivities in Auckland made the mistake of emphasising one specific event which required people to be at the waterfront at a very specific time. This was the fireworks display. 15 minutes. And it was heavily promoted. It was a beautiful night. Everyone came. They demanded transport. Demand exceeded peak. Gridlock. Q.E.D.

There are adaptive fanzones all over Auckland now. We see some of them in the media. Like the bars and restaurants in Kingsland. There are other opportunities. Like Queen Street. Like Aotea Square. Where fun can be spread out. In time and space.

We can learn from what happened by not planning for a repeat performance. A repeat performance is almost guaranteed if the powers that be decide there will be a fireworks display at the end of the RWC tournament that you can only see from the Waterfront, and that you see best from the VIP platform at the end of Queens Wharf.

Dignatories will have a great time. Might even think of getting there by helicopter or by boat to avoid the crowds. Imagine that. Private ferry service.

But everyone else who wants to come to the party must take a risk and plunge into the CBD at the Waterfront (fit young things and tough old things), while everyone else stays at home and watches TV (families, mum and dad, older people....the majority).

Spread the love guys. Plan for a party across Auckland.

Queens Wharf on Sunday

Went across to Party Central for the Samoa v Wales game on Sunday. Took the ferry. Half full I guess on the 3:15 crossing for a 3:30 game start. Queens Wharf looked pretty sparse. But the queue was at least 400 metres long - fairly off-putting - but it was moving at a slow walking pace. With all those barriers and channels you did feel a bit like lambs entering a freezing works. Surely there could be more than one entry gate. Anyway. Once inside went to the big crystal clear screens of The Cloud. Quite a small crowd in there - but it's hard to get in front of the screen once there's a few people there sitting on the floor. Which we did. Man, hard as. And cold as. Cold bum territory.

The kids and mums and dads sat on the floor. The lucky ones could sit on the low walls at the back. I guess it's a standing room only sort of place, but for a lot of the time, people will want to sit... We stayed there till half time, but not before...

...there had been some excitement on the big screen and everyone liked that the cheering and flag waving was great...

Halftime food was called for. I really wanted an icecream but couldn't find one. Plenty of chips and donuts to be had though... everybody was there.... not all of them happy...

This lot were though. Halftime and Samoa were in the lead. Time for family snaps...

Time to meet up and get together...

That's right...

Shed 10 is hard to beat. Went there for second half. That roof has character. Glows with it. And it feels warm somehow.

Game almost on. A good feeling. Despite being chilly outside. Southerly change...

Social down this end of Shed 10.

English fans were supporting Wales. Bit of face-painting. Samoans had really gone to town...

Not so cheery now though. Wales had turned the game around. We decided to head for the ferry. In case there was a mass exit. Was pretty civilised though...

Till the next game.

Parnell Pet Project Politics

Recognise these two faces? Two peas in a pod. Both let nothing stand in the way of pet projects. Both wanted the character sheds on Queens Wharf demolished. Both want a mega cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf.

Both have track records of delivering personal pet projects, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, a deal's a deal. Man oh man. Good qualities if you want a champion for a good project. But damaging and expensive otherwise....

Take the Helensville Rail trial service for example. Even as Chair of ARC's Transport Ctte I didn't see that train project coming. Thought it was just a bad idea. So did ARTA. So did Connex (now Veolia). All strongly advised against it. I was advised it would be cheaper to buy the few potential commuters a BMW each. But Mike Lee pushed it through. Every trick in the book. Never really held accountable for the cost of that failure. Blamed Connex. Blamed ARTA...

Now we have a brand new Parnell Railway station in the wrong place being manipulated into being by the same old Mike Lee up to his same old tricks.

Here's what ARC's report into the proposal had to say when a Parnell Railway possibility was considered by ARC's Transport and Urban Development Committee at its 4 June 2010 meeting. The report gave an update on planning investigations into 3 options for a station at Parnell shown in this graphic from the report. The Cheshire Street option is the one being pushed for by Mike Lee - for reasons which are not altogether clear. The report says this about that option:

The Cheshire St site provides the best access to Parnell centre. However the Cheshire St site has nearly 50% of its catchment in the Domain meaning intensive business or residential development could not take place in this half of the station’s catchment, and the walking catchment is more limited.

The report comments on the Parnell Road Overbridge option like this:

The Parnell road over-bridge site was originally favoured by Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The Newmarket/Parnell Area Plan, part of the Future Planning Framework, approved by Auckland City Council, located the station close to the Parnell Road over-bridge site because it served the busiest catchment, was closest to the University and would assist the development of the business node at Beach Road/Stanley Street.

The "middle" option - Carlaw Park - is described like this:

The Carlaw Park site appears to combine the advantages of both sites. It can service the university and the Beach Rd/Stanley St business node while providing better access to Parnell centre. The Carlaw Park site is approximately 200 metres from the Cheshire St site and can provide access to Parnell centre within a four minute walk....

The report does not make happy reading for supporters of the Cheshire Street option (like Mike Lee - who appears to be suppressing ARTA and ARC's consideration of this matter.)

There is potential to reduce car trips and hence congestion if the station is located with good access for university students. In the University’s Travel Plan (2007) 15,710 students and 584 staff indicated that they would replace car travel with other modes of travel. Approximately 50% of this group indicated the proximity of public transport to the campus would be a factor in this decision.

The Auckland City Council has looked at pedestrian accessibility, including walking
distances, gradients and safety. In comparing the options, it identifies a number of
safety issues, in particular isolation and personal safety concerns, for the Cheshire
site, and the difficulties of the track to the museum for the aged and infirm....

The 4 June 2010 ARC meeting report also summarises ARTA's position on the matter, along with this tabulation of the relative merits of the two different options that ARTA looked at. It appears that ARTA conducted preliminary investigations into the feasibility of siting a station on the existing rail track between Parnell Road tunnel and the Stanley Street Bridge. Its findings include:

...While no conclusions have been reached, both the northern (former Carlaw Park) and southern (Cheshire St/Mainline Steam) locations are considered to be feasible options. It is apparent that a balance may need to be found between serving different catchments such as museum visitors, Parnell and Carlaw Park business node residents and visitors, and university students....

But it is when land use considerations are brought into play that the Mike Lee option runs into serious treacle. As the report notes:

It is important that development of a station and the wider site in Parnell is based on good urban design principles and leads to a high quality development. Master planning will be essential to ensure that the benefits go beyond the site and that it works for Parnell and wider communities....

The report includes a fair summary of the ideas of Parnell Mainstreet whose concept at Cheshire Street is to consolidate transport infrastructure around the heart of a community, utilizing the existing rail network, an established rail depot, character railway buildings and undeveloped railway land. The ‘idea’ centres on establishment of a ‘destination’ train station, not just a purely ‘commuter’ station nor university station.

In a sense this is a heritage idea driving Auckland's rail network design. A Mike Lee hobby horse - a bit like heritage trams running around the Wynyard Loop.

The report concludes fairly categorically:

One key consideration is the potential for transit oriented development around the station in the medium to longer term.

From the analysis completed by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and ACC to date it is apparent that a station at Carlaw Park would support the business node, university, Vector Arena and provide reasonable access to the Parnell centre, irrespective of any future land use changes in the vicinity of the station.

A station at Cheshire Street will be reliant on significant redevelopment in the area as part of comprehensive masterplan. The KiwiRail site is strategically important, close to Parnell, offers wide views and amenity, overlooking the open space of the Domain, likely to have high land values (assist redevelopment), enable growth of Parnell without affecting the heritage character of the main street, etc.

If a significant redevelopment can be delivered in conjunction with station development, then this location for a future station should be supported.

If the future use of the Cheshire Street site is not transit supportive (i.e. it provides for few residents or employees, is not designed to support walking and PT use and is designed for vehicles) then the location of the station should not be supported.

The report also mentions that The Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) had committed $1.5 million to Parnell station design in 2011/12 (Regional Land Transport Programme, 2009/10-2011/12).

Those are the only funds that had been allocated to that project by Auckland Regional Council and ARTA before their abolition at the end of 2010. The matter was considered by ARC's Transport Committee (items for information only ) twice more before Council ended.

However the Parnell Station was considered for decision at ARC's last Council meeting on the 27th September 2010. The last hurrah. After ARTA had been pushed into agreeing to Mike's project...

The report makes little mention of the need for Transit Oriented Development, or of the need to connect with the greatest number of land uses. It provides this rough concept outline of where the station would go, which confirms the wilderness nature of its location, and the lack of development opportunities, given the determination to retain the heritage buildings.

Here is the executive summary of that Council report:

A concept design for a new station at Parnell has been developed by ARTA in conjunction with KiwiRail. It has been determined that the preferred location is one adjacent to the existing Main Line Steam (MLS) Depot off Cheshire Street and preliminary design is now being progressed with associated costings.

A total cost of $13.2-15.2 million has been estimated. This includes $5.5m for track
modifications and between $3.5 to $5.5m for platforms, overbridges, lifts, platform
equipment and retailing walls.

Relocation and refurbishment of the Newmarket Heritage Building has a budget of
$4.2m carried forward by Kiwirail from an earlier government commitment. While
there is no detailed costing available at this stage, unspent funds could be utilized for other purposes such as track modifications.

Enabling works for electrification between Newmarket Tunnel and The Strand are
currently programmed to take place in July or August 2011. Re-grading of the track
along this section would involve significant rework of the electrification infrastructure.

This would suggest that a decision on the future Parnell station should be addressed
by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport with urgency, in order to integrate
works and avoid costly reworking.

Thus not only are the Mainline Steam site buildings to be retained, but the old wooden heritage station from Newmarket Station is to be restored there as well. This may be a good idea for a heritage park - but it makes little sense to be developed into a modern station on a line that is destined to carry tens of thousands of commuters/hour. The devil is in the detail. Final extracts from the Council report indicate the rushed nature of Mike's Parnell Project:

In order to meet rail and platform gradient requirements the rail track will need to be re-graded over approximately a kilometre of track and crossover points critical for access to The Strand will need to be relocated. Modification of the access tracks to the MLS Depot is also required. KiwiRail have undertaken preliminary track design and have determined that these modifications are feasible.... (and all before Christmas it seems)

This Kiwirail owned site clearly has potential for development as an integrated transit oriented development, and this could potentially provide opportunities for private sector funding. Parnell Inc have shared their views with the council that in their view that the MLS building could be used for alternative suitable uses, such as a museum and space for local exhibitions and small businesses, etc, and include rail heritage.... (all very preliminary and potential, could this, could that...)

Preliminary modelling has indicated that a Parnell Station would influence rail service frequencies and more analysis would be required to identify any necessary mitigation measures.... (Man oh man)

There are no financial and resourcing implications arising from this report. The cost of a future Parnell Station is estimated in this report and will need to be considered by the Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Kiwirail.... (And that's the big one. No budget has been previously agreed for this by ARC or ARTA)

So suck on that Auckland Council. And do your job properly. It's about time pet projects like this bottom-of-the-priority-list Parnell Station option get the full once over before being included in any Auckland Council budget approval. That means integrating public transport planning with land use planning.

Auckland Rail Blame Game (2)

I thought you'd like this crowd control system in Victoria, Australia. "....The officers and horses are equipped with riot gear to protect them from any indirect projectiles or attempted assaults, as well as reflective tape to aid visibility. Mounted police are often employed in crowd control because of their mobile mass and height advantage...."

Yesterday, Monday after Friday's rail chaos, there were a number of interviews which I thought I'd interpret. Read between the lines. Offer my perspective. I'll skip the ones in the morning because they were all a bit overheated.

But first of all, a story. When I was a North Shore City Councillor, I was also on Devonport Community Board. Devonport hosts a big event - The Devonport Food and Wine Festival. Every year the organisation that runs it - Devonport Rotary (to generate money for various good causes in the community) - comes to Devonport Community Board in support of its application to run the event on Windsor Park at the waterfront.

One year I remember, Devonport Rotary had been a bit too successful with its promotions of the event. It had sought permission for an event of about 20,000 people over two days. But what happened was the event - and Devonport - were basically overwhelmed because around 40,000 came to the party. The event organisers closed the barriers around their event - they had sufficient security for the event which was enclosed in a wire fence - so the rest spilled out into Devonport streets, squares and waterfront areas, and got quietly pissed in public. They did other things in public too. There was quite a public backlash. Devonport Rotary was called to account by the Community Board.... and when Devonport Rotary came along the next year to seek permission we were very keen to make sure they didn't overdo the promotion. In short we got involved in event management and crowd control.

(PostScript: Needed to add this bit on Wednesday morning after reading about McCully's takeover of Auckland's waterfront, after his gated party central on Queens Wharf got mobbed.

The equivalent in Devonport would have been for Rotary to annex Devonport's town centre!

McCully's Government is stepping way over the line here. And in who's interest? The International Rugby Board? The National Party election campaign? Because I don't think McCully's knee jerk actions are in Auckland's best interests. A rational national approach to the situation Auckland finds itself in, would be a partnership between the police and Auckland Council, the rapid development of a crowd management plan, and the managed redirection of crowds to existing alternative locations. The easiest would be to pedestrianise Queen Street from Quay Street to Aotea Square, and to relocate some attractions to Aotea Square. And an associated media campaign to direct crowds to different attractions at different destinations. A strong, but organised and directed police presence would be essential (not on horses). Crowd monitoring (helicopter or whatever) would provide info to a crowd control office. This info would be used to manage the police presence. Their job would be to firmly direct and redirect pedestrian movement. This would not dampen party spirits. It would give people confidence the event(s) would be safe to attend. Sending people onto Captain Cook Wharf at this late stage is not a good option.

I must confess a part of me secretly likes Government taking control of Captain Cook and the West edge of Bledisloe from the Port Company for Party Central. Just as I quite liked Govt stepping in to take Queens Wharf for that purpose. Next step? Cruise ship terminal on Bledisloe. Not on Queens Wharf....)

Back to Friday.

The first interview of interest that I heard yesterday was on National Radio with the CEO of Veolia Auckland. Graham Sibery I think. Interviewed by Mary Wilson in her usual combative, not really listening sort of way. But I was listening. It was interesting that the CEO of Veolia was the only person being interviewed on CheckPoint. Here's what I heard him say:

* we had an agreement with Auckland Transport to carry 15,000 fans to Eden Park for the game (from Newmarket and Britomart and presumably stations along the way)
* the stations are basically "unmanned"
* we had people climbing on the trains
* the rail system was basically overwhelmed

The interviewer wanted him to fall on his sword of course. She wasn't really listening, and she didn't know the organisational background and responsibilities that underpin Auckland Transport services.

But I have some idea.

Veolia has a service contract with Auckland Transport to operate and maintain the trains which are publicly owned. KiwiRail has a contract with Central Government to maintain the rail network. But it is Auckland Transport that has responsibility for operating and maintaining Auckland's railway and ferry stations. And Auckland Transport is answerable to Auckland Council.

There were two events on Friday night. Rugby at Eden Park and the Rugby World Cup festivities on the waterfront. Auckland event management and control is fundamentally the responsibility of Auckland Council - though this duty is discharged through a variety of boards and committees where other stakeholders are represented.

Auckland Council owns and is responsible for Auckland's streets and Auckland's ferry and railway stations.

So. Veolia has a contract with Auckland Transport to carry 15,000 people to see the rugby and attend the opening at Eden Park. I explained in yesterday's blog about this that Auckland's rail infrastructure carries about 3,600 passengers/hour/line at peak commute times. (Because it is a limited service today). I imagine then, that to carry 15,000 people to and from the game, Veolia will be relying on passengers tolerating crowded trains, and assuming it will meet its obligations by moving about 6,000 from Newmarket and Britomart respectively over a two hour period, and about 3,000 from the West. These numbers are informed but speculative. I haven't sighted the event services contract.

So now we come to the second significant interview of the evening. That's with Mayor Len Brown by Mark Sainsbury on CloseUp after TV One News. Len Brown apologised first up, and then appeared to blame everything on the fact that 200,000 people turned up at the Waterfront instead of the 120,000 he figured would come.

What was the transport plan for getting people to and from the waterfront? Veolia had contracted to get people to Eden Park. That's a fair question?

It is interesting that there doesn't appear to be any push from politicians to haul Fullers over the coals in public in the same way that Veolia is being hauled over the coals.

Ferry services are handled slightly differently to rail. Fullers is contracted with Auckland Transport to operate the ferry services, AND to handle ticketing and manage the ferry terminals. Effectively ferry stations. So it's a more horizonatlly integrated contract with Fuller. Passengers step into Fuller's hands pretty much from the moment they walk into a ferry station to when they walk out of it. Fullers collects the whole farebox too.

But that's not what happens with Rail. Auckland Transport runs the stations, issues the tickets, collects the farebox - and sub contracts to Veolia the running of the trains. I'm not sure exactly where you draw the line on a station platform between Veolia's responsibility and Auckland Transport's responsibility, but you get the picture. Basically Auckland Transport - under control of Auckland Council - is responsible for everything that happens in Auckland's railway stations.

Which as Veolia's CEO explained are basically "un-manned" - except for Britomart - because that's where tickets are issued (unless you get one on the train, and when travel is free there's no need for ticket collectors.....)

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what happened.

Auckland Council permitted two hugely popular events at each end of its main railway line (Eden Park and Britomart). Auckland Council anticipated about 60,000 at one, and at least 100,000 at the other. But only contracted with Veolia to get 15,000 to Eden Park.

Auckland Council and Auckland Transport appear to have made no effort at all to stop crowds of people from flocking to station and ferry platforms all over Auckland, and - as both Len Brown and Veolia's CEO said - overwhelming the system.

My experience at the city ferry terminal was that it was overwhelmed - not by people coming over from Devonport - but by people who had been attracted to the waterfront to see the fireworks and who realised their only way to get a good look was to be over the other side of the Waitemata. They jammed the terminal so completely - let in first by Fullers ticketing staff, who then closed the gates to the terminal - that people could not get off the ferries. But there were so many others outside the gate, spilling out into Quay Street, that no-one could get of the terminal either.

So yes. The transport systems were overwhelmed.

But it is not because of Veolia that there was chaos.

The chaos arose because Auckland Council did not plan properly for the inevitable crowds. Central Govt shares this responsibility also. They now need to share the management of Plan B.

Mayor Brown's comments suggest Auckland Council simply hoped that crowded stations would be cleared by a steady stream of empty trains (let alone ferries). But 15,000 doesn't make much of a dent in 100,000 - let alone 200,000 - especially when they're going in both directions! Hope is not enough. I'm sure Veolia's report will make interesting reading, but that's not the report I'll be looking for. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport and the Event Managers need to get together and write a report we can all learn from so crowd chaos doesn't happen again.

Auckland's waterfront is becoming a party place at last. Make it a safe place to be, to get to, and to get home from. But don't take risks putting all our eggs in one basket down there for the really big crowds - when other adjoining public places and streets can be used more effectively and made safe.

Auckland Rail Blame Game

Decades of neglect and under-funding are the fundamental reason for the fragility of Auckland's commuter rail system. Central and Regional Government each share some of the responsibility for the delicacy of Auckland Rail which comes under strain at peak time - like any network system.

But it's not that simple. We should be able to do better with what we have. The public should be able to rely on the institutions that are responsible for governing and operating Auckland commuter rail to provide services that are safe - irrespective of the delicacy or robustness of the network. It should not be up to the public to carry out a risk assessment everytime they give up their cars and follow advice to take public transport.

Auckland Rail is an accident waiting to happen in peak times.

While it was my responsibility chair Auckland Regional Transport Committees, I became aware of one of the unfortunate legacies of Auckland's rail neglect. And I have reason to believe that problem still hasn't gone away. This experience was during 2005. Auckland rail services at the time were only around 60% reliable - that is - around 40% of rail services arrived or left at times that were significantly different from timetable, driving commuters up the wall, and away from rail.

At the time, the CEO of Connex which was responsible for operating the trains under contract to ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority), was Chris White. He's now with Veolia in Melbourne. He had huge experience and commitment, but I found it was largely ignored by Auckland Regional Council (ARC) politicians in particular, who were determined to stretch the fragile network to its limits in order to meet ill-founded public expectations about service levels.

I talked to Chris and asked him, "why is the service so unreliable...?" because I really didn't know, and because I thought I should know, in order to more effectively chair relevant committees. He answered, "the timetable's too tightly wound...". I had no idea what he was talking about. So I asked him.

He explained further, "you guys want us to deliver 10 and 12 minute services, with trains and systems that keep falling over, and we just can't do it, not with the best will in the world...". I was learning.

Back at the ARC, in a sort of populist hope over experience way, politicians had been egging on officers and staff, putting pressure on an inexperienced Board of Directors at ARTA, who were bullied into accepting completely unrealistic performance targets for Auckland's fledgling rail system.

With the reluctant support of ARC politicians, I made a presentation to ARTA's Board and senior staff, asking them to "unwind the timetable", and adopt 15 minute headways. Which they gratefully did. Within a week or two the service reliability performance was better than 95%.

The network is stronger today than it was then. But not much stronger. And there is a continuing history of political interference and politicians turning a blind eye to the fundamentals of what makes for a safe, frequent and reliable operation. That problem has not yet been sorted by changes in governance arrangements.

Wisconsin Rail states: "Commuter rail will provide an additional transportation choice and improve mobility by connecting suburban and urban areas. It will help connect workers to their jobs and provide an alternative for those who cannot or chose not to drive. It will also provide rail safety benefits through crossing and infrastructure improvements..." The city defines commuter rail: "passenger rail operating primarily oon existing freight and/or intercity passenger railroad tracks on a separate right-of-way between and within metropolitan and surburban areas... commuter rail usually operates during peak travel times with limited stops and in conjunction with other transit modes as part of a regional transit system..."

Now there's not much in there that you could take exception to, or even that is different from Auckland. But there are some key points:

provide rail safety benefits through...crossing improvements

separate right-of-way

connecting urban and suburban areas

...peak times with limited stops...

Auckland has consistently ignored the real threat to safety, and to frequency and speed of service, that is posed by the dozen or so dangerous level crossings that interrupt rail's right-of-way across the network. While budget was planned for this in 2006, almost nothing was allocated, and little was spent. Instead short term projects were pursued that had the support of one or two politicians. This problem still besets Auckland rail planning.

Which brings me to peak time travel. Which includes events.

Crowd Control at Victoria Station: The Underground station at London Victoria facilitates around 80 million passengers per year. Due to severe overcrowding, crowd control is in place during the busiest times. This includes closing the entrance to the Underground stations at times and only letting passengers exit. This is to prevent passengers being pushed onto the tracks when standing on the platform.

There was no evidence of any effective plan either at Britomart or at the Auckland Ferry Terminal - to manage this situation - short of closing down the station. Ok, nobody was killed or injured and that's a measure of success, but also thousands of people's travel arrangements and fun were ruined or severely affected by such a draconian approach.

Reading on a little, in Google, as you do,

Massachussets Bay Transit Authority annnouncement:
NEW YEAR’S EVE – FREE SERVICE AFTER 8
COMPLETE SCHEDULE AVAILABLE BELOW.
Friday, December 31 through Saturday, January 1st

Today, the MBTA announced its service schedule for New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day. The MBTA is providing extra transit services throughout the First Night Festivities and will be offering FREE service after 8:00 p.m. Extra MBTA Police will patrol the system to assist with crowd control and safety.

I'm sure we would like rail to be free when there's a big event in Auckland. But what I'm really interested in here is the reference to "extra MBTA police". That's right. A key complaint from those affected on Friday, in Auckland, was that there was nobody around. Nobody to protect them. Nobody on hand to deal with perfectly predictable incidents with fire-extinguishers and emergency stop buttons. No system that was useful and quick and efficient for dealing with "shit happens when there's a party" sort of situations.

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute has researched what makes people happy/unhappy with public transport. "Crowding in accessways, stations and platforms makes walking and waiting time less pleasant.... A minute of time spent waiting under high crowding conditions is valued equal to 3.2 minutes of onboard train time whereas walking time is valued at 3.5 times higher (reflecting the additional discomfort and effort involved, but not the reduced walking speed caused by crowding). In dollar value terms, an hour of waiting under high crowding is valued at $30.33 and an hour of walking is valued at $32.65. Extreme crowding can increase costs as much as ten times.... Fruin developed six station environment crowding Levels-of-Service ratings, ranging from ‘A’ (no crowding) to ‘F’ (extreme crowding). Research summarizes the effects of density and crowding on travel time cost values. These costs begin to increase significantly when crowding exceeds LOS D, which occurs at a density of 0.7 Passengers Per Square Meter (PSM). Crowding has an even greater impact on walking, since it both increases costs per minute and reduces walking speeds. For level of service ‘F’ characterized by the breakdown of passenger flow, the crowding cost imposes a cost 10 ten times greater than level of service A...."

I know. You'll be saying we know all that. But the thing is. What are you going to do about it?

I note in the literature, reams of advice to congressional requesters, regarding the vexed topic: COMMUTER RAIL: Many Factors Influence Liability and Indemnity Provisions, and Options Exist to Facilitate Negotiations. The report I looked at was prepared for Congressmen by the US Goverment Accountability Office - whose byline is: accountability, integrity, reliability. I guess this will be the sort of thing that Mayor Len Brown, and even the Minister for the Rugby World Cup will be looking for. In the blame game.

I think the issue comes down to one of safety. It is not safe to have passengers walking along railway tracks in the dark. It is not safe to lock passengers in stopped trains and fail to explain why. It is not safe to let passengers onto platforms that are already full. And that's really just the start. Safety should be paramount in Auckland's commuter rail planning.

Auckland's rail network has a very low carrying capacity. And that will remain so for at least a decade it seems. Our system is not like Perth's which can carry 18,000 passsengers on each line/hour. Our system struggles now to carry 3,000 passengers on each line per hour on a good day. (Do the math: 6-carriage trains, 6/hour at 10 minute headway, 100 passengers/carriage at 100% loading = 3,600 passengers/hour). That's the reality. Any attempt to "tighten the timetable" - to carry more people to Eden Park for example - is an invitation to disaster. It is a risk. It puts people's lives at risk. It creates unsafe and uncomfortable environments. It is not a responsible way to run a railroad.

Auckland Council must now prioritise passenger safety, and the funding of projects that increase public safety and service reliability - especially at peak travel times because that is when the risk is greatest.

The New York State Dept of Transport has a Public Transport Safety Board which promulgates System Safety Program Plan Guidelines for Commuter Rail Transit Systems. "Historically, the PTSB's oversight program has been built around a requirement that each property develop a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) that details the property's internal operating procedures for conducting business in a safe and efficient manner. The guidelines contained in this document provide individual properties with the guidance...." These include:

4.2.2.7 EOP for crowd control on a train and/or at a station is attached or referenced in SSPP

6.1.6.3 SSPP reflects which rail stations/terminals are monitored by CCTV for surveillance and crowd control

11.2.1.8 Emergency operating procedure for crowd control on a train and/or a station is developed by the Transportation Dept.

11.5.4.3 Railroad Police help define roles and responsibilities for responding to an incident of crowd control/disturbance.

15.6.4.4 Conductors are trained on passenger safety including
overcrowding and disruptions....

And I really only scratched the surface of the systems and situations referred to in these New York guidelines.

If Auckland wants a rail service to match its waterfront, there's work to be done. And it's not the frills. It's the fundamentals.

Waterfront Big Day Out

Photo essay of the big day before a big night. This is the Waka Prow carving that greets you on Te Whero Island, heading toward Wynyard Quarter on Auckland's waterfront. I took my bike there yesterday - just after lunch - Friday 9th September. Day of the Rugby World Cup opening party. You couldn't have wished for better weather... Had to dismount going over the bridge. Already getting congested...

This view of the kids playing in the water at the bottom of the steps was a delight. Safe splashing and jumping. parents sitting behind. Picnic lunches. Fantastic.

This waterfront promenade - from the central wharves, past the ferry terminal, beside Quay Street, through the Viaduct area, Te Whero, over the bridge, and down into Jellicoe Park is a wonderful waterfront asset for Auckland. For all of Auckland.

I quite liked the look and interest of the tankfarm from the gantry. Began to see some potential. One or two cities around the world have transformed these areas into places of art. (See for example: Ballast Point Park - Walama - Sydney, which was the site of fuel storage tanks. One or two were retained.... There are others...)

The grand silo. An opportunity awaiting ideas and innovation. A gatepost to the North Western end of Jellicoe Park. Where I think some great views are available toward the Harbour Bridge. But these are mostly blocked (by the huge boat moored at the wharf there, and also by the lift shaft at that end of the public gantry.)

These casually placed blocks are great seats. Boy and Seagull. I like this photo. Click it to see it big. Give it space to breath on your screen.

The six pack silos. Now that's going to make a great viewing platform. What else is in store...

This is the end of the Wynyard Quarter where there is still some serious marine work going on. Part of the working wharf experience. But it's hard to see. From the gantry I managed to squeeze this one off. The idea of being able to get up close and dirty is a good one. People want to be able to see what's going on. From a safe distance of course...

This is the view I was talking about. But it's hard to find. It's special around sunset. Framed by the bridge. I know it's the coat-hanger to us locals, but to visitors it often means much more. Give it some space. This is a viewline or view corridor that deserves protection. Think about that Auckland Council. The Kestrel doesn't get in the way - but the large ship behind it certainly does.

Back down the promenade toward Viaduct and Queens Wharf. The Marine Event Centre on the left always seems to draw people - just as the NetShed and North Wharf does. Great people places and spaces to sit and just watch the world go by...

I love it when streets get pedestrianised. For a while people stick to the footpaths. Then gradually spill onto the street. One of the big screens is in the background - spreads right across Quay Street (Note the bedraggled "A" logos...? I think we need to revert to "City of Sails" - memorable, stood the test of time, nothing else has come close, no other city has adopted it - that I know of.). Getting ready for game time and anything else that might hit those big screens...

Everybody was coming out. This was not just a day for international visitors to Auckland. This was a day when Aucklanders visited Auckland. They finally have a place to come to. The waterfront is finally, beginning to meet that latent demand. Love it. Embrace it. Don't pretend it doesn't exist when you next think of commercialising Queens Wharf for cruise ships...

That brings me inside Shed 10. I've been longing to see what's inside. Well kept secret. It was already full by the time I got there about 3:30pm. Had my first Heineken. 300 ml in a plastic cup set me back $7.50. Expensive. I thought a tad too expensive actually. Is that how powers that be plan to claw back a return on this investment?

The informality of the place feels good. A bit like the old booze barn feel of New Zealand pubs in the bad old days. Very good social space design though. Not a place for kids. Didn't like the MasterCard sponsored area much. In the best place too...

The games are a bit of fun. Novelty will remain as new visitors pour through. I like the doors opening out onto the central area framed by the Cloud and Shed 10, but it's sad to have such limited access to the sea, the edge of the wharf, and sea views. Shed 10 is introverted in its adaptation and makes the same mistake in design as the Devonport Wharf building. Too inward looking. Dosen't need to be that way.

The area between Shed 10 and The Cloud is popular for sitting, chilling and meeting and greeting. (The Cloud's that white shape to the right by the way... I didn't Tipex it out... honest... a picture coming up...)

There were heaps of kiwis down here. They'd had to queue for a long time to get in. Spacious. Room to move. Room to think. Click to enjoy.

By the way - you can click any of these photos to see a bigger view. These little images don't really do justice to my pics. Like this one. Lots of great detail. Go on. Have a closer look. That's the Cloud in the background...

After I'd had another Heineken, it was time to get a bit closer and see who else was on Queens Wharf...

There were some very elegant visitors. Yes sir. Ready for a party these two dudes.

This one may have been experiencing the frustration of mobile phone system overload. It wasn't just the trains that ground to a halt on the Waterfront... everyone out to play...

Some very relaxed. By the way. When you are on Queens Wharf you realise what a cultural melting pot Auckland really is. When something happens on Queens Wharf, downtown, that attracts Auckland's different groups. They come to town. Take for example, when the Chinese Warships came to Auckland.

Everyone came for a look. Bit like what happened when Wynyard Quarter opened first.

They came to party.

They came to meet up with mates.

They came to watch the rugby on Queens Wharf. (Click for a nice face paint job.)

They went to a lot of trouble.

These two were looking for trouble. Or looked like trouble looking for trouble.

Someone said to me, "I didn't know there were so many Tongans living in Auckland...." Man oh man. We don't see our Tongan population in Auckland Central much because we don't prioritise their needs. We talk about vibrant pacific culture in the words in our visions, but we don't match those words with actions on the streets. Queens Wharf and Party Central should give us a few ideas. (Auckland's Tongan population is about 40,000 people, Samoan 100,000)

These guys are heartland Auckland.

These guys? Well. Out for a good night I'd say. Come to the right place. Bugger the phones...

These guys come to the right place too.

This is inside the Kea. Devonport Ferry. I think I might have been on the last trip before they had to stop the ferries because there were too many people crammed into the terminal. People couldn't get off the ferries, which meant people couldn't get on. A few lessons about crowd control needed here.

This is the pic I promised of the Cloud. I think it worked OK for its purpose - to house those fantastic big screens which you can see here through the plastic walls. This edge of Queens Wharf was one of the few places where you could actually see the waterfront. Hemmed in though like chickens behind a prisoner of war camp like wire fence. Nothing like that around Princes Wharf. Well not yet. I guess everyone's being safety conscious. Maybe it's for when the cruise ships come. Then Queens Wharf might be a bit hemmed in.

The ferry rounds the corner at the end of Queens Wharf and we head for home. It was a great day out. Sun setting. Time to go home and watch the fireworks from Devonport. Quite a few on the ferry had come from South Auckland (I talked to two women from Waiuku, came all the way up in the train, caught the ferry, to see the fireworks. They'd figured they'd not see them from Quay Street because it was too crowded!) Auckland's waterfront has never been better. Great public attractions and places and spaces. It's brought Auckland into town. This is what cities are for, and what cities are about.