The streetfilms videos that I’ve posted recently seem fairly popular, so here’s another one – on Seattle’s new (as in it opened last year) light-rail system:
Sometimes I wonder whether this kind of “technical solution” could be a reasonable way to upgrade the Northern Busway. It would be much much cheaper than heavy rail – as it might be able to go over the Harbour Bridge and could be constructed without significantly regrading the busway. But at the same time it wouldn’t offer the massive speed and capacity gains that you’d get from heavy rail – so the price of the upgrade might not actually gain you much benefit over and above a busway.
It is interesting how US cities are really keen on their light-rail though.
Processing...
‘Bus’ is something of a dirty word in most American cities, synonymous with ‘poor’ or ‘welfare’. I think one of the reasons light rail is so popular is that is has a much better image with the middle class there, so it’s likely to get voted for and be used by them.
Concur. The rule-of-thumb I have seen is that in American contexts, fifty percent of the users of a new LRT system will be former bus users; in New Zealand or Australia I would expect two-thirds of the users of an improved public transport system, like a rail investment, to be former bus users; but in Britain, fully eighty percent of the users of a new LRT system would be former bus users.
I think the artwork at stations thing is especially important in a place like Auckland as there is still a (thankfully fading) perception that Public transport is that thing for people who cant afford to drive… something poor people are ‘forced’ to do. When some care and some functionally redundant stuff is invested in, it shows people that the system is actually trying to attract people, convince those who have other options and make the environment a nice place to be in- and that would be a complete waste of time if the trains were grotty and the service was uncompetitive, as people would only use it once. The authorities are finally starting to get this, as is seen at our newer stations. Papatoetoe and GI were designed as top ‘feature stations’ when they were done, and they were pretty amazing compared to what we had, but if we got one of them now, even at an average station, we would all be fairly disappointed I think.
The face of our PT system (such as Britomart, Newmarket, New Lynn, and other prominent stations need to look convincing and as if they are built for YOU.
Light rail can do high capacity too. Look up Manila LRT1. ~40 000 ppdph. Its slower than heavy rail though. I think the main issue with light rail in Auckland will be the Gauge.
Scott, despite its name the system in Manilla isn’t light rail like is being discussed here. It has fully grade separated track, full size elevated stations and metro trains that cannot be used on street. Each of their trains holds over a thousand people, which is more than a six car EMU in Auckland could!
There is the chance of upgrading the busway to a similar light metro system: it would overcome some of the grade issues and still have plenty of extra capacity, but it would probably still require a new harbour crossing and definitely a tunnel through the CBD. There would also be issues with interoperability on the existing lines.
Im pretty sure the rolling stock could be run on the street. However, Currently too many MU’s are coupled to do that. I only went on the other rail line when I was there (MRT), so I cannot give my personal impression sorry. LRT1 was definitely built for light rail rolling stock (I think they got gifted the trains). It runs 750v DC and has low top speeds (~60km/h).
UM, we are taking about the possibility of running light rail on the Busway. This is currently grade separated. I view this as a fair comparison. I don’t see the point in building anything less.
The one in the video is significantly grade separated to and has full stations etc. I think we are talking about metro style operation. Are you discussing fully street running systems?
The system in the video seems to be mostly grade separated, has proper stations etc, In the context of the north shore, the busway is grade separated, and it would be stupid to do anything less with “busway” light rail. I think the manila system is relevant. It has the advantages being able to handle steeper grades etc, and the disadvantages of slower speeds.
I understand the Manila LRT (I have only caught the manila MRT so haven’t personally ridden the yellow line) Runs at 750v, and was originally constructed for second hand light rail rolling stock (which is capable of street running) I understand the current vehicles are still suitable for street running if required.
I think manila’s light rail is possibility the most relevant system to what is being discussed.
Personally I think we need heavy rail for speed and network connectivity on the shore.
My understanding is the LRT was built to the design constraints of street running trams (i.e allowing much tighter curves and steeper grades than conventional rail) and uses tram style power and signalling systems, but it is totally grade separated, with high level platforms and the new vehicles lack suitable bumpers and lights for street operation and are used in multiple configurations that are too long for city streets.
The original light rail scheme for Auckland was based around the concept of modern trams/LRVs that would run on the street through the inner city, but operate on their own right of way through the suburbs to provide good transit times. The Busway and the Central Connector were the only two parts of the scheme to come to fruition, each an example of the two types of running, albeit modified to use buses instead of trams/LRVs. So light rail in Auckland has historically been this stree-trams-with-off-road-bits, and when they say the “busway is upgradeable to light rail” they mean this.
This sort of light rail is perhaps an attractive proposition because it could be routed over the harbour bridge and through city streets, although I can’t see a street capable system being enough improvement in capacity or speed over the existing busway to justify the cost of the upgrade. A Manila style light metro would be an improvement in terms of capacity while still being able to handle the existing busway grades, but it would need it’s own grade separated route across the harbour and through the city, which basically means a harbour tunnel is still required.
I agree the Shore line should be heavy rail. Personally I think if we are going to bother to construct a new harbour crossing for rail plus the connecting tunnels under the CBD, then we should bite the bullet and pay to modify the busway too so that it can be the same high speed, high capacity heavy rail as the rest of the system.
But the big downside of not going to proper rail on the Shore is the loss of connection with the rest of the network. No route straight through town without a transfer between modes, that would be a big shame.
Although deploying busses to along main thoroughfares accomplishes the same missions as light rail (though not as well), busses do not spur development. Developers was a permanent transit system in place. Bus routes can change anytime. Consequently, no wonder developers do not write checks for developments along bus routes.
Too bad people in Tampa do not get that.
The Bike hooks are a great idea. Has anyone seen those on buses?
Acessibility studies were conducted by NZTA on all the Busway stations but we are yet to see them implemented, and they have almost disapeared.
– Akoranga had paths accross to Takapuna and Hauraki
– Smales had a ped link to Wairau Valley
– Sunnynook had a back entrance to the local streets.
Without these sorts of links and no feeder buses, it makes sense so many people drive.
Just wondering, what do people here see as the difference between light rail and trams? It seems to be a pretty foggy area to me, but people on this blog tend to be somewhat enthusiastic about “trams” but less so about “light rail”.
I think it’s whether you use trams/light-rail as a “superior bus route” or whether you use them as a “cheap rail” option.
My general opinion is that light-rail works best in the former than the latter.
There is no real definition, which often makes things frustrating.
I see the difference as being: ‘trams’ are rail vehicles that run in the road corridor (although not necessarily in traffic lanes), while ‘light rail’ is trams that have some or all of their track in dedicated off-road corridors. That pretty much matches up with what admin is saying, in the first case trams are a step up from buses and bus lanes, while in the second case they are a step down from ‘proper’ rail (often as a way to save money I assume).
I think the term light rail has taken off in various places (it is often used incorrectly to refer to Robbies rail plans) due to simple marketing, in most cases ‘light’ sounds better than ‘heavy’ so in this situation people perceive light rail as a more advanced solution compared to old heavy rail which brings up connotations of big old lumbering steam trains.
Whats quite impressive is that they already have 7.5 min peak frequencies which is better than Auckland can manage and that once they finish a 3 mile tunnel, it will hugely increase the patronage and allow for 3 min frequencies.
I think light rail is perfect for Auckland and the north shore.
>it wouldn’t offer the massive speed and capacity gains that you’d get from heavy rail
Does the shore need the capacity of heavy rail? Auckland is medium density, it is not for many many decades going to have the population to support widespread heavy rail.
Light rail on the other hand is perfect, grade separated on the busway for speed, far higher capacity than buses, but it can still split off into the suburbs to take people closer to their homes as buses currently do.
It can’t interconnect with the heavy rail lines, but it could interconnect with new light rail lines down e.g. dominion road.
It works in Melbourne, it can work in Auckland
“far higher capacity than buses, but it can still split off into the suburbs to take people closer to their homes as buses currently do”
What me and Nick were discussing earlier boils down to what is Light Rail. The line between light and heavy rail is quite uncertain. A better comparison to make is between trams and a metro style system (be that light of heavy weight)
Lets define Trams as any system that involves street running.
Basically the length of a trams cannot exceed the block length (or distance between intersections) where it is running. If it was to the rear of the tram would block the preceding intersection if the tram had to stop at a red light. Also platforms must be longer than the tram, kinda hard to build a 150m long platform on a suburban street.
This means street running Trams are very limited in length. The manila system gets its high capacity by coupling 3 (i think) such trams together to from each train. If they had to run on single trams then the capacity would drop by 2/3, bring it down to about 13000ppdph. A street running section would introduce more un-predictability, possibly requiring increased headways, which would reduce the capacity more.
I understand the current bus-way could (with more buses) exceed capacity of partly street running system (buses have more traction than trams, so can run tighter headways, buses currently stop off-line, while trams would (likely) have to stop online). It is important to note that bus-way buses have a speed limit of 80km/h hour while the manila LRT has a top speed of 60km/h (i think).
Pretty much, unless we go for metro style operation (be that light or heavy rail) we are better off sticking with the current (very good busway) than laying tram tracks on it.
why are we continually talking about north shore rail along a motorway corridor? that is a transport solution for a transport problem, missing the whole point of land use and transportation integration. the point of rapid mass transit should be to facilitate more efficient and better use of land, and vice versa – more efficient use of land will trigger more rapid mass transit.
but you will never get the intensification required if the line just follows a motorway! what sort of environment is it for either higher density residential or high quality mixed use centres? and without intensification (land value/uptake) benefits you are only getting transport benefits, and the cost is then prohibitive.
rapid transit should form a string of beads of high intensity use, but in most cases the motorway will preclude that, unless the route leaves the motorway corridor in places to facilitate a node. otherwise you will get half nodes compromised and undermined by a motorway (eg smales farm).
While what you say is true, any other alignment is going to be so expensive that it has a very low chance of happening.
While I agree land use and transport needs better coordination and that mixed use intensification around public transport nodes is a vary good idea… we can’t be too hung up on ‘getting the required intensification’ over servicing the existing development and the wider area.
My case in point, there are about 250,000 people living on the shore currently. Say we build a rail line with five stations at major nodes of intesification, and each node attracts new development equal to the proposed ToD at Orakei Point…. well that equal to about 5,000 new residents all up. So effectively the rail line would be designed to serve 2% of the population and ignore the other 98%.
Or say we go really crazy and intensify our five nodes by 10,000 people each, building literal cities within the city… that’s still favouring 20% of the Shore over the other 80%!
Rapid transit on the Shore needs to be based first and foremost around interchange stations which are easily accessible from the whole area by bus and to a lesser extent cycle, car and foot. If we design a rapid transit system to be based around walk up traffic only it will fail to achieve anything, even if we go crazy trying to build in density arond the stations.
With a propoper interchange system we could intensify any and every centre or shopping area on the Shore, as each would be part of a high quality reliable rapid transit system.
But I do ask, why can’t we intensify if the route follows the motorway? Is there not a heap of land between Akoranga Station and Barry’s Point Rd? Likewise at Albany and Smales Farm, and the proposed station site at Rosedale Rd. Albany is scheduled for massive greenfield intensification as a starter. At Smales Farm there is 12 hectares of land, of which about 10 hectares is carparking and open land. You could build the whole Takapuna CBD in that space.
Rapid Transit on the Shore has to be based around interchanges and connections, but if we can direct intensive development to the site of those interchanges then it will be all the better for it.
Light rail offers a fairly limited increse in capacity over buses, perhaps a 50% gain at the most.
I would argue that it doesn’t ‘work in Melbourne’, the St Kilda and Port Melbourne light rail lines suffer from chronic congestion at peak times.
This can be attributed to the fact that even the largest C2 class LRVs (five sectional articulated trams) can carry only 250 people at crush load. This is in comparison to the six car EMUs they replaced, which could handle just under 1,000 people each at crush load. They already run one LRV every every six minutes during the peak, but they have trouble running any more due to congestion on the city tracks and through the various intersections at each end.
It is generally considered that the ‘upgrade’ of these two lines to light rail was a bad idea.
One thing to consider with the North Shore is that it currently has a population of over 250,000 people (including Orewa and Whangaparoa). That’s larger than Hamilton and Tauranga put together. By 2031 the Shore is projected to have 430,000 residents. So twenty years from now the North Shore will have as many people living in it that Wellington has today. Considering it will take the best part of twenty years to get rail on the Shore we should probably be looking at the most capacious mode possible.
>Also platforms must be longer than the tram, kinda hard to build a 150m long platform on a suburban street.
Most ( but not all ) trams i’ve used don’t have platforms, you get onto them just like you would a bus, but they are much longer and far higher capacity than buses. Quicker loading times and more comfortable too. So you’re only limited to the minimum length between intersections i guess.
Like these ones from a visit to Bremen, Germany a couple of weekends ago.
http://dantheperson.net/gallery/Bremen/2010_10_31_13_34_38
They can meander through the middle of a street market in the way a bus or heavy rail never could.
Wonderful city, vibrant city center serviced by 7 tram lines (plus buses of course), 11mins to the airport by tram, more people cycling than driving. Population 500K, density 1.6K/sqkm – not too far off aucklands 1.2K/sqkm