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.

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.

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.